The Prophet ﷺ said, "Whoever performs ablution washing each part once, that is the obligatory measure of ablution that cannot be omitted. Whoever washes twice receives a double reward. And whoever washes three times, that is my ablution and the ablution of the prophets before me."
حدثنا أسود بن عامر أخبرنا إسرائيل عن زيد العمي عن نافع
عن النبي ﷺ قال من توضأ واحدة فتلك وظيفة الوضوء التي لا بد منها ومن توضأ اثنتين فله كفلان ومن توضأ ثلاثا فذلك وضوئي ووضوء الأنبياء قبلي
No references are available.
Its isnad is daif. Abu Israil is Malai Ismail bin Khalifa, whose weakness we already explained at 974. The hadith was narrated by Daraqutni, 30, through the route of the Musnad, with this isnad, and it is in Majma al-Zawaid, 1:230, where he said, Ahmad narrated it, and it contains Zayd Ammi, who is daif, though he has been deemed trustworthy, and the rest of its men are men of the Sahih. This is a serious error. We already explained at 4683 that Zayd Ammi is trustworthy, and that what the scholars of hadith criticized in him was actually due to those who narrated from him, not him. But it is astonishing that Haythami slipped and stated that the rest of its men are men of the Sahih, when Abu Israil Malai was never among the men of the Sahih at all. Neither of the two Shaykhs (Bukhari and Muslim) narrated from him, nor did any of the imams grade his narrations as sahih.In fact, the Hafiz referred to this narration in al-Talkhis, 29, though without attributing it to the Musnad, saying, Daraqutni said in al-Ilal, Abu Israil Malai narrated it from Zayd Ammi from Nafi from Ibn Umar, but this is a mistake, and the correct view is that of those who said, from Muawiya bin Qurra.The narration of Muawiya bin Qurra was narrated by Abu Dawud Tayalisi, 1924, from Sallam Tawil, from Zayd Ammi, from Muawiya bin Qurra, from Ibn Umar, in a similar wording to this hadith. Sallam bin Salm Saadi Tawil is extremely daif. Ahmad said, He narrated objectionable hadiths. Ibn Main said, He is nothing. Bukhari said in al-Kabir, 134/2/2, They abandoned him, and likewise in al-Duafa, 17. Nasai said in al-Duafa, 14, His hadith is abandoned, and Ibn Kharrash accused him of lying. Ibn Hibban said, He narrated fabrications from trustworthy narrators, as if he deliberately did so.Daraqutni likewise narrated it, 30, through two isnads via the route of Sallam Tawil. Ibn Majah narrated something similar to it, 1:83-84, through the route of Abdul-Raheem bin Zayd Ammi, from his father, from Muawiya bin Qurra, from Ibn Umar. Abdul-Raheem bin Zayd is extremely daif, indeed a liar. Bukhari said in al-Saghir, 213, and al-Duafa, 24, They abandoned him. Ibn Main said, He is a wicked liar. Abu Hatim said, His hadith is to be abandoned, it is objectionable, he used to corrupt his father's material, narrating outrageous things from him.Bayhaqi likewise narrated it, 1:80-81, through the route of Sallam Tawil, then said, And thus Abdul-Raheem bin Zayd Ammi narrated it from his father, but others contradicted them both, and they are not strong narrators.Hakim referred in al-Mustadrak, 1:150, to the narration of Muawiya bin Qurra from Ibn Umar, describing it as a mursal narration. Likewise, the Hafiz said in al-Talkhis, 30, Muawiya bin Qurra did not meet Ibn Umar. Both of them, in this, are following Abu Hatim and Abu Zura, for Ibn Abu Hatim related from both of them that Muawiya bin Qurra did not meet Ibn Umar. But this deserves scrutiny, indeed it is a mistake, for he died in the year 113 at the age of 76, meaning he was born around the year 37, and he had a long overlap with Ibn Umar's lifetime. He is trustworthy and has not been accused of tadlis.The hadith has other chains of transmission, all of them...