Ahmad 5626

Its isnad is sahih. Something similar in meaning has already passed via the route of Nafi from Ibn Umar, 4659, 4735, and another story with this meaning has also passed via the route of Abu Khusayb from Ibn Umar, 5567.(5626) This is a report from Anas bin Malik, and its isnad is very daif. Another version of it will come as a marfu report in the Musnad of Anas, 13312, and we will point to it here, going into detail on it in its proper place, Allah willing. The reasons this isnad is weak are, first, that Faraj bin Fadala is daif, as we said at 581, and we add here that Bukhari said in his Saghir, 199, "He is munkar al-hadith, Ibn Mahdi eventually abandoned him," and he said in his Duafa, 29, "He is munkar al-hadith," and he also said in his Saghir, 192, "Abdul-Rahman would not narrate from Faraj bin Fadala, and he used to say, He narrates munkar hadiths from Yahya bin Saeed." As for his teacher Muhammad bin Amir, I could not identify who he is. The only person by that name in Tahdhib is Muhammad bin Amir Antaki, 9:241, and he is not the narrator here, as can be understood from his biography. No entry at all under the name Muhammad bin Amir is found in Tajil, and among those mentioned by this name in Mizan and Lisan, it is unlikely that this is any of them. Two men by this name appear in Bukhari's Kabir, 1/1/184-185, and this narrator is certainly not either of them. Hafiz Ibn Hajar, in Qawl Musaddad, p. 8, in the words of his teacher Iraqi on this isnad, quotes Ibn Jawzi as saying, "As for Muhammad bin Amir, Ibn Hibban said, He reverses reports and narrates from trustworthy narrators things that are not from their actual hadiths." I could not find this statement that Ibn Jawzi attributes to Ibn Hibban in the biography of anyone bearing this name, so I do not know whether it is an accurate citation, or whether there is an error and haste on the part of Ibn Jawzi. Whatever the case, I consider it more likely that this is a narrator whose identity Faraj bin Fadala confused, and perhaps he is Muhammad bin Abdullah Amiri, who will appear in the isnad following this one, also from Faraj bin Fadala himself.As for Muhammad bin Ubaydullah, Ibn Jawzi asserted, as Iraqi also quotes from him, that he is Arzami, but I have doubts as to whether Ibn Jawzi verified and confirmed this. I fear it may be an error and haste on his part. If it is indeed him, then Arzami is very daif. Ahmad said, as will come in the Musnad at 6938, "Arzami's hadith is not worth anything." Bukhari said in his Kabir, 1/1/171, and his Saghir, 176, and his Duafa, 32, "Ibn Mubarak and Yahya abandoned him." Nasai said in his Duafa, 26, "He is matruk al-hadith." Ibn Main said, "He is nothing, and his hadith should not be written down." Hakim said, "He is matruk al-hadith without any disagreement I know of among the authorities on transmission regarding him." Perhaps it is this confusion over who Muhammad bin Amir and Muhammad bin Ubaydullah actually are that led Hafiz Haythami, in Majma al-Zawaid, 10:205, to say about this report, "In the isnad of the mawquf report of Anas there is someone I could not identify."As for Amr bin Jafar, this is how it appears in all three source copies of the Musnad, but what Iraqi quoted from the Musnad at this point (p. 7 of Qawl Musaddad) is Jafar bin Amr, and it will become clear from the isnad coming in the Musnad of Anas at 13312 that he is Jafar bin Amr bin Umaya Damri. This Jafar is a Madinan Successor and a trustworthy narrator, whose biography Bukhari gives in his Kabir, 1/2/193.In this isnad, in copy M, it reads, "from Muhammad bin Ubaydullah bin Amr bin Jafar," which is undoubtedly an error. In its margin there is a variant reading of Abdullah instead of Ubaydullah. So I suspect, though I cannot assert or judge with certainty without strong evidence, that if this variant reading is correct, then the correct isnad would be, "from Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Amr, from Jafar." The corruption in this variant would then be in the phrase "bin Jafar," since the correct reading should be "from Jafar." The corruption in copy K and the original of copy M would be in the word "Ubaydullah," since the correct reading should be "Abdullah." And the corruption in copy K would be in the phrase "from Amr bin Jafar," since the correct reading should be "bin Amr, from Jafar." If what we have surmised here were established, by giving preference to other manuscript copies, the isnad would be set right as follows, "from Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Amr" — this being Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Amr bin Uthman, who will appear in the isnad following this one — "from Jafar," this being Jafar bin Amr bin Umaya Damri, "from Anas." Even so, the isnad would still be daif, due to the confusion introduced by Faraj bin Fadala. However, I was not able to assert this correction of the isnad with certainty, nor to give it preference, so I have left it as it stands established in the three source copies, while explaining the error and confusion within it.As for the meaning of the hadith in itself, it is sahih and firmly established, through the isnad that will come as a marfu report in the Musnad of Anas at 13312, where Imam Ahmad narrated it there from Anas bin Iyad, "Yusuf bin Abu Dhurra Ansari narrated to me, from Jafar bin Amr bin Umaya Damri, from Anas bin Malik," relating something similar to it as marfu. This is a sahih isnad, despite the fact that Hafiz Iraqi declared it daif, and despite the fact that Ibn Jawzi mentioned it in his Mawduat. Here is the exact text of Iraqi's statement (p. 8 of Qawl Musaddad), "The defect of the marfu hadith [meaning 13312] is Yusuf bin Abu Dhurra. In his biography, Ibn Hibban mentions him in Tarikh Duafa, and says, He narrates munkar reports that have no basis in the words of the Messenger of Allah, and it is not permissible to rely on him under any circumstances. He narrated that hadith from Anas. Ibn Jawzi mentioned this hadith in Mawduat, via both routes, the marfu and the mawquf, and said, This hadith is not sound as coming from the Prophet. He faulted the mawquf hadith on account of Faraj bin Fadala, and related the statements of the authorities declaring him daif. He said, As for Muhammad bin Amir, Ibn Hibban said, He reverses reports and narrates from trustworthy narrators things that are not from their actual hadiths. As for Muhammad bin Ubaydullah, he is Arzami. Ahmad said, People have abandoned his hadith." I say [the speaker being Iraqi], "Faraj bin Fadala confused matters regarding this hadith, narrating it in this form [meaning this isnad, 5626, mawquf on Anas bin Malik], and he also reversed its isnad on another occasion, making it a hadith of Ibn Umar, also marfu, which Ahmad also narrated," meaning the isnad following this one, 5627.We have already explained the error and haste found in Ibn Jawzi's statement, and we have explained our own view regarding this mawquf isnad, namely that it is daif. As for the marfu hadith from the report of Anas, 13312, in which Yusuf bin Abu Dhurra appears, its isnad is at least hasan. Anas bin Iyad is a teacher of Ahmad, whose reliability was already established at 528 and 5584. As for Yusuf bin Abu Dhurra [with a fatha on the dhal and a doubled ra] Ansari, Ibn Hibban said of him what Iraqi quoted, as found in Mizan and Tajil and Lisan Mizan, and in these sources it is also reported from Ibn Main that he said, "He is nothing." However, I consider it more likely that he should be regarded as reliable, because Bukhari and Nasai did not mention him among the Duafa. Rather, Bukhari gave his biography in his Kabir, 4/2/387, and pointed to this very hadith of his, saying, "Yusuf bin Abu Dhurra Ansari, from Jafar bin Amr bin Umaya Damri, from Anas bin Malik, narrated from him by Anas bin Iyad Abu Damra." This treatment by Bukhari and Nasai constitutes, in my view, a clear and sufficient endorsement of his reliability, which I give preference over the statements of Yahya bin Main and Ibn Hibban. For this reason, I consider that Hafiz Ibn Hajar was entirely correct when he responded to Ibn Jawzi's assertion that this hadith was fabricated, saying in Qawl Musaddad, 22-23, "It does not follow, from the fact that Faraj [meaning Ibn Fadala] confused its isnad, that the text itself is fabricated, for it has other routes from Anas and others, such that, taking them together, it becomes impossible to judge the text as fabricated." He then pointed to some of its other routes, from Anas and from other companions, and then said, "Among the strongest of its routes is what Bayhaqi narrated in his Zuhd, from Hakim, from Asamm, from Bakr bin Sahl, from Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Ramh, from Abdullah bin Wahb, from Hafs bin Maysara, from Zayd bin Aslam, from Anas," relating this hadith. Its narrators, from Ibn Wahb onward, are all men found in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. Bayhaqi, Hakim, and Asamm need no inquiry into their reliability. Ibn Ramh is trustworthy. Bakr bin Sahl was deemed reliable by a group of scholars, while Nasai declared him daif [I say, perhaps this was in a work other than his Duafa, since he did not mention him there]. Maslama bin Qasim said, "Some scholars declared him daif on account of his narration from Saeed bin Kathir, from Yahya bin Ayub, from Mujammi bin Kaab, from Maslama bin Makhlad, as a raised hadith, where he said, Honor the women, they will stay in their chambers," meaning that he erred in this narration.I say [the speaker being Ibn Hajar], "Even so, Bakr bin Sahl did not narrate it alone, for we have transmitted it in the ninety-ninth session of the Amali of Hafiz Abu Qasim bin Asakir, which he extracted via the route of the Fawaid of Abu Bakr Muqri, who said, Abu Aruba Harrani narrated to us, from Khalad bin Malik Harrani, from Sanani," this being Hafs bin Maysara, and he related it accordingly. And we have likewise transmitted it in the Fawaid of Ismail bin Fadl Ashyad, "Abu Tahir bin Abdul-Raheem narrated to us, Abu Bakr Muqri narrated to us," with the same wording. Khalad bin Malik was a teacher of Abu Aruba, among the highest-ranking teachers of Abu Aruba. Abu Zura Razi deemed him trustworthy, and I am not aware of anyone criticizing him. The rest of the narrators in the isnad are trustworthy.If this hadith had no route but this one, it would be sufficient to refute anyone who judged it to be fabricated, let alone the fact that it has other isnads as well. Among them is what Abu Jafar Ahmad bin Mani narrated in his Musnad, from Abbad bin Abbad Muhallabi, from Abdul-Wahid bin Rashid, from Anas, something similar to it. As for Abdul-Wahid, I have not seen any criticism of him. As for Abbad, he is among the trustworthy narrators, deemed reliable by Ahmad bin Hanbal, Yahya bin Main, Ajli, and others, and Ibn Hibban mentioned him among the Thuqat.I say, the narration that Hafiz mentioned from Bayhaqi's book, via the route of Bakr bin Sahl, he also mentioned in his biography in Lisan Mizan, 2:51-52, with its isnad and wording, and then mentioned that Bakr did not narrate it alone, for Abu Bakr Muqri also narrated it in his Fawaid, from Abu Aruba Husayn bin Muhammad Harrani, from Khalad bin Malik Harrani, from Sanani, this being Hafs bin Maysara, with the same content. Hafiz Abu Qasim bin Asakir dictated it in the ninety-ninth session of his Amali, and said, "This is a hasan hadith."As for Abdul-Wahid bin Rashid, of whom Hafiz said that he had not seen any criticism, his biography appears in Mizan, 2:157, where Dhahabi said, "Abdul-Wahid bin Rashid, from Anas, and Abbad narrated from him, he is not a reliable authority. He narrated the hadith, Whoever reaches the age of ninety is called the captive of Allah upon His earth." Hafiz quoted Dhahabi's statement in Lisan Mizan, 4:79, without commenting on it at all. The wording of Dhahabi's statement gives no indication that any early scholar criticized him. Rather, this is simply a remark of his own, that is, of Dhahabi, that carries no particular weight either way. He seems to have feared that the hadith might be daif, and so he cast the man as unreliable without evidence or explanation. It is astonishing that Ibn Hajar did not comment on this, given that he himself took a contrary position in Qawl Musaddad.Hafiz mentioned many narrations conveying the meaning of this hadith in his treatise on the Khisal Mukaffira lil-Dhunub, published in the collection Majmuat Rasail Muniriyya, vol. 1, pp. 214-216, but he cited them without giving their isnads. Haythami likewise mentioned many narrations in Majma al-Zawaid, 10:204-206, and among them he mentioned this hadith of Anas as marfu in four narrations, then said, "Abu Yaala narrated all of them with his isnads, and Ahmad narrated it mawquf in abridged form." Following that, he related, by his own isnad, a report reaching back to Abdullah bin Umar bin Khattab, from the Prophet, saying, "Similar to it," and the narrators of Ibn Umar's isnad [meaning the following hadith, 5627] are trustworthy, though some of them carry considerable weakness. In one of Abu Yaala's isnads there is Yasin Zayyat, and in another there is Yusuf bin Abu Dhurra, both of whom are very daif, and in another there is Abu Ubayda bin Fudayl bin Iyad, who is weak in reliability, while the rest of the narrators in these routes are trustworthy, and in the mawquf isnad of Anas there is someone I could not identify.It has become clear to you from what we have discussed that the mawquf isnad on Anas is a daif isnad, and that the marfu isnad, in which Yusuf bin Abu Dhurra appears, is at least hasan, supported by other isnads that raise it to the level of sahih. It has also become clear that Hafiz Haythami overlooked the fact that Ahmad narrated the isnad containing Ibn Abu Dhurra, and so did not attribute it to the Musnad, restricting his attribution to Abu Yaala only. As for the two isnads in which he mentioned Yasin Zayyat and Abu Ubayda bin Fudayl, they are not before me, so I am unable to verify them. Yasin Zayyat is very daif, as Haythami said, while Abu Ubayda bin Fudayl is trustworthy, as we said at 797.And praise be to Allah for granting success.