Ahmad 6077

There is a fine point of investigation in its chain, and I consider it more likely to be sahih, for what will follow.Abdul-Rahman bin Salih bin Muhammad Ansari, I have not found a biographical entry for him under this name in the books of rijal available to me, and I do not think the scholars would have neglected to mention him if this were truly his name and lineage in this exact form. In fact, I have not found anyone named Abdul-Rahman bin Salih except a later narrator among the teachers of Abdullah bin Ahmad, from the generation of Imam Ahmad, namely Abdul-Rahman bin Salih Azdi Ataki, but he is not Ansari, and he is not from the generation of the narrator mentioned here.I consider it far more likely, indeed I am almost certain, that the correct name of this narrator is Abdul-Rahman bin Muhammad Ansari, that is, Abdul-Rahman bin Abu Rijal, Muhammad bin Haritha bin Numan bin Nafee Ansari Madani. He is trustworthy, deemed so by Ahmad, Ibn Main, Daraqutni, and others, and Abu Hatim said of him, "sound." I have favored this identification because this Ibn Abu Rijal narrates from Umar bin Abdullah, the freedman of Ghafra, the narrator of this hadith, as is stated explicitly in Tahzib, in the biography of Abdul-Rahman, 6:169, and in the biography of the freedman of Ghafra, 471-472, and because his is the closest of the names among these entries, the entries of those named Abdul-Rahman, to the form given here. As for the addition of the words "bin Salih" to his lineage, I consider it more likely that this came from some later copyists, despite its being fixed in all three original manuscripts. Perhaps this addition arose because one of the scholars, upon reading some of the old manuscripts of the Musnad, wrote above the name Abdul-Rahman, Abu Hatim's description of him as "sound," and the copyists then assumed this was an addition to the man's lineage, so they inserted it into the body of the text and wrote it as "bin Salih." That, in my view, is the source of the error.Likewise, the brother of Abdul-Rahman bin Abu Rijal, namely Malik bin Abu Rijal, narrates from Umar, the freedman of Ghafra, as in a hadith transmitted by Ibn Kathir in Tafsir, 5:142.I have not found this chain anywhere other than this place, nor have I found anyone among the earlier scholars who referred to it, so I am unable to reach a definitive judgment on it. It is only a matter of strong likelihood.As for the hadith itself, it has already appeared at 5584, from Anas bin Iyad, from Umar bin Abdullah, the freedman of Ghafra, from Ibn Umar, with no mention of Nafi. We noted there that this chain is daif, because of the break between the freedman of Ghafra and Ibn Umar. So if this chain given here were sahih, and I consider it more likely to be so, it would be a connected chain, and the defect of discontinuity would be removed.The hadith has two other daif chains, which we pointed to in the commentary on 5584, and it has yet another daif chain as well, related by Abu Bakr Ajurri in his book Sharia, p. 190, through Abu Musab, who said, Hakam bin Saeed Saeedi told us, from a son of Saeed bin Aas, from Humayd bin Abdul-Rahman, from Nafi, from Ibn Umar, mentioning something similar as a raised hadith.Bukhari referred to it in Kabir, 1/2/339, in the biography of Hakam bin Saeed, briefly as is his custom, saying, Ibrahim bin Hamza said, Hakam bin Saeed Umawi told us, from Humayd bin Abdul-Rahman, from Nafi, from Ibn Umar, from the Prophet ﷺ, or from his father, from the Prophet ﷺ, who said, "The Qadariyyah are the Magians of my nation." Bukhari then mentioned another hadith of his, and then said, it is rejected. He also gave a biography in Sagheer, p. 217, for this Hakam bin Saeed Madani Umawi, and said, "his hadith is rejected," which is a severe disparagement of this Hakam on Bukhari's part. Dhahabi mentioned him in Mizan under the discussion of this hadith and said that it is among his rejected reports. Hafiz added in Lisan Mizan, 2:322, that Aqeeli mentioned him among the daif narrators, and that Ibn Adi and Azdi likewise said, "his hadith is rejected." Aqeeli said, after mentioning this hadith of his, that it is related through daif chains other than this one.The hadith also has a corroborating report from the hadith of Huzaifa, with a daif chain containing an unnamed narrator. Ahmad related it in Musnad (5:406,407 h) through Thawri, from Umar bin Muhammad, from Umar, the freedman of Ghafra, from a man of the Ansar, from Huzaifa, mentioning something similar as a raised hadith, at length. Abu Dawud likewise related it, 4:357,358, through Thawri, with this same chain.