Ahmad 5605

The chain of transmission is sahih. Minhal bin Jumay, with a damma on the mim, a fatha on the jim, then a doubled mim with a kasra, al-Dabbi, al-Kufi, is trustworthy. Ibn Main and Abu Dawud graded him trustworthy. In the chain that follows this one, Sufyan Thawri's statement about him will come, that he was satisfactory. Bukhari gave his biography in Tarikh al-Kabir 4/2/115 and quoted Thawri's statement.Qazaa, with fathas throughout, is Abu Ghadiya, whose trustworthiness was already established at 264 and 4781.The narration of Ibn Mahdi here, following this one, from Sufyan, that he once said, "Minhal, from Qazaa or from Abu Ghalib," does not affect, in my view, the soundness of this chain. This Abu Ghalib has a biography in Tahdhib 12:198, which states, "Abu Ghalib, from Ibn Umar, concerning the farewell, and from him narrated Abu Sinan Darrar bin Mura and Minhal bin Jumay al-Dabbi." Ibn Main said, "I do not know him." Hafiz said in Taqrib, "Obscure." I did not find his biography in Bukhari's Kuna, because the section containing the letter ghayn is missing from the original manuscript on which the printed edition was based.Despite this obscurity concerning Abu Ghalib, and despite the doubt reported from Thawri as to whether it is from Minhal from Qazaa or from Minhal from Abu Ghalib, I consider this chain sahih, for the following reasons.First, this is not actually doubt on Sufyan's own part. Rather, he stated definitively that it was from Minhal from Qazaa, and only on one occasion said that it was from Qazaa or Abu Ghalib. The one who narrated this hesitation from him is Ibn Mahdi. But the second chain for this hadith was narrated from Sufyan by Abdullah bin Mubarak, and no hesitation is mentioned in it. So perhaps the error, if there was an error, came from Ibn Mahdi.Second, although we have not confirmed Abu Ghalib as trustworthy, he should not be regarded as unknown either. He is an obscure Successor, and such a person is presumed truthful and reliable until the contrary is shown.Third, Tahdhib noted in his biography that he narrated from Ibn Umar the hadith of the farewell, and marked him with Nasai's symbol from Amal al-Yawm wal-Layla. We do not have this book, but we understand from this a reference to the earlier hadith at 4781 and 4957, which will also come again at 6199, namely his statement upon seeing off a traveler, "I entrust your religion and your trust to Allah," and so on, which is what Qazaa narrated from Ibn Umar. From this we can understand that this hadith and the one we have graded sahih are one and the same, narrated by both Qazaa and Abu Ghalib from Ibn Umar, that he related the wording of the farewell and then related this statement of Luqman, attributing all of it to the Prophet ﷺ.Fourth, supporting this understanding, indeed raising it to the level of certainty, is what we quoted from Bukhari's Tarikh al-Kabir in the explanation of hadith 4957, namely his statement, "Abu Naeem said, from Sufyan, from Abu Sinan, from Ghalib and Abu Qazaa, that he saw them off." We noted there that this is how it appears in the manuscripts of Tarikh al-Kabir, and this chain here has clarified for us the nature of the corruption in it. The original reading was "from Abu Ghalib and Qazaa," but some copyists made an error. Still, this chain as found in Bukhari shows that Ibn Umar saw off both Abu Ghalib and Qazaa and bade them farewell, whether together or separately, and that both of them narrated from him the hadith of the farewell. It is therefore highly likely, indeed nearly beyond doubt, that both of them also narrated from him this statement of Luqman as attributed to the Prophet, in the manner found in this chain and the one following it.This hadith is certainly among the additional narrations, but its location within Majma al-Zawaid has remained hidden from me. Suyuti quoted it in Jami Saghir, 2403, and marked it with the symbol of daif. Perhaps he did so because of this hesitation in the narration of Abdul-Rahman bin Mahdi from Sufyan.I think that Munawi, too, was unaware of the hadith's location within Majma al-Zawaid, so he departed from his usual practice in his commentary, saying nothing about grading the hadith sahih or daif, and saying nothing about its sourcing. Perhaps he left the matter aside, intending to return to it if he came across it, but then what he wanted never came about for him.