Ahmad 6360

Its chain of transmission is sahih. Abu Dawud narrated it (43:210-212) from Khushaysh bin Asram, and Tirmidhi (3: ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??) from Abd bin Humayd, both of them from Abdul-Razzaq from Maamar from Zuhri, with this same chain. Muslim also narrated it from Abd bin Humayd and Salama bin Shabib, both of them likewise from Abdul-Razzaq, but he did not give its wording in full, referring instead to another version before it. This hadith and the five chains after it are actually three hadiths, but Bukhari and Muslim narrated them together as a single hadith through a route other than Abdul-Razzaq, and each of them also narrated some parts without others, as we will mention, Allah willing. Bukhari narrated it through Hisham bin Yusuf Sanani from Maamar from Zuhri, with this same chain, giving all three hadiths in sequence. Muslim narrated it from Abd bin Humayd and Salama bin Shabib, both of them from Abdul-Razzaq from Maamar, with this same chain, but he did not give its wording, saying instead that it carried the same meaning as the hadith of Yunus and Salih, except that Abd bin Humayd did not mention the hadith of Ibn Umar about the Prophet's ﷺ going with Ubayy bin Kaab to the palm grove, meaning the second of these three hadiths, narrated under numbers 3633 and 3634. The version of Yunus and Salih found in Muslim will be pointed out later. Muslim also added at the end a fourth hadith with the same chain up to Zuhri, in which Ibn Shihab (that is, Zuhri) said, Umar bin Thabit Ansari informed me that one of the companions of the Messenger of Allah informed him that the Messenger of Allah said, "The people will gather Dajjal, and it is written between his eyes, kafir, which will be read by whoever dislikes his deeds." This last addition is not part of the musnad of Ibn Umar, and for that reason Imam Ahmad did not narrate it in this place.Al-utum, with hamza and dal both vocalized with damma, means fortress, and its meaning has already been explained in detail. Khattabi said in Maalim Sunan, al-utum is an elevated structure like a fortress, and the atam of Madinah are its fortresses. Banu Muazah, with fatha on the meem and the ain, is a clan of the Ansar, from Banu Adi bin Najjar, named after their mother Muazah, a woman from Khazraj. Qadi Iyad said in Mashariq Anwar, Zubayr bin Bakkar said, "If you are at the pass of Wada, then everything to your right belongs to Banu Muazah, and in it is the masjid of the Prophet, and everything to your left belongs to Banu Hudayla."[?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?] 6:119, in it there is an indication that the Jews, of whom Ibn Sayad was one, acknowledged the sending of the Messenger of Allah, but claimed that it was restricted to the Arabs. The falseness of their argument is very clear, because if they acknowledged that he was the Messenger of Allah, it would be impossible for him to lie about Allah, so if he claimed that he was His messenger to the Arabs and to others besides them, his truthfulness would be established, and it would be obligatory to believe him.I say, and we have seen in our own era in which we live, the fourteenth century of the hijrah, people among the Christians and others who believe that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, yet claim that despite this they are not obligated to follow him, imagining that they follow other prophets instead, or that they do good by their own reasoning! They are only deceiving themselves, for if they believe in his truthfulness, they must believe him in everything he brought and follow him. Indeed we find many of those whom people regard as Muslims doing this and worse, believing in this noble messenger and in the universality of his message, yet rejecting his law in every matter of their worldly affairs, claiming that ruling by the Book and the sunnah, which they are commanded to obey and to apply as judgment in all their affairs, is a regression of the nation backward and a retreat from dazzling but false modernity! This applies to the sincere among them in what they say. As for the rest, we have no need to expose their situation.Regarding the statement of the Messenger of Allah, "I believe in Allah and His messengers," Hafiz said, Zayn Ibn Munir said, the Prophet only offered Islam to Ibn Sayad on the assumption that he was not the Dajjal against whom warning had been given. I say (the speaker being Ibn Hajar), that is not certain, rather what appears is that his matter was uncertain, and the Prophet wanted to test him by this, for if he answered correctly it would strengthen the likelihood that he was not him, and if he did not answer, the possibility would remain. Or he intended by questioning him to expose his falsehood, which would contradict any claim to prophethood, and since that was indeed what was intended, he answered him with a fair reply, saying, "I believe in Allah and His messenger." Qurtubi said, Ibn Sayad followed the way of soothsayers, giving information that would sometimes prove true and sometimes prove false, and this became widely known, yet no revelation came down concerning his case, so the Prophet wanted to follow a method that would test his condition, which is the reason the Prophet went to him.Khattabi said in Maalim (4162), people differed greatly about Ibn Sayad, and his case became confusing, until every possible opinion was said about him. One might ask about this and say, how could the Messenger of Allah leave a man who falsely claimed prophethood, letting him remain in Madinah, dwelling in his house near him and neighboring him there? What does that mean, and what is the point of testing him with what he concealed for him from the verse of Dukhan, and his statement afterward, "Be off, you will never exceed your measure"?What I hold is that this incident occurred with him during the days when the Messenger of Allah had a truce with the Jews and their allies. That is because after his arrival in Madinah, he wrote an agreement between himself and the Jews, making peace with them on the condition that they would not be attacked and would be left to their own affairs. It seems Ibn Sayad was one of them, or an infiltrator among them, and news of him and what he claimed of soothsaying and his dealings in matters of the unseen would reach the Messenger of Allah, so he tested him with this in order to bring his true nature to light and clarify his situation. When he spoke with him, he knew that he was false, and that he was among the sorcerers or soothsayers, or among those to whom a jinn companion comes, or whom a devil visits and puts certain words on his tongue. So when he heard him say "ad-dukh," he rebuked him, saying, "Be off, you will never exceed your measure," meaning that this was something the devil had discovered and cast to him, running it upon his tongue, and it was not from heavenly revelation, since he did not have the rank of the prophets to whom Allah revealed knowledge of the unseen, nor the station of the saints who are inspired with knowledge and attain truth through the light of their hearts. Rather he had periods in which he was sometimes correct and sometimes mistaken. That is the meaning of his statement, "A truthful one and a lying one come to me," so the Prophet said to him at that point, "It has been confused for you." In sum, he was a trial by which Allah tested His believing servants, so that whoever was to perish would perish with clear evidence, and whoever was to live would live with clear evidence. Allah had likewise tested the people of Musa in his time with the calf, so some among them were tempted by it and perished, while whoever Allah guided and protected from them was saved.His statement, "khabaa," with fatha on the kha and kasra on the ba followed by a ya, and it is also permissible with fatha on the kha and kasra on it with sukun on the ba followed by hamza, khab and khabee both mean the thing that is hidden and concealed.His statement, "ad-dukh," with damma on the dal, though fatha is also permissible, with shadda on the kha. Some scholars of language said it means smoke (dukhan), and Hafiz said in Fath, it is said that he was bewildered and only managed to utter part of the word dukhan. This seems to be the more apparent explanation, because what had been concealed for him was the verse, "the Day when the sky will bring forth a visible smoke" [Dukhan 44:10]. This verse was not mentioned in the narrations of the two sheikhs in Sahihayn. Hafiz said in Fath, Bazzar and Tabarani in al-Awsat have, from the hadith of Zayd bin Haritha, that he said, the Prophet had concealed for him Surah Dukhan, and it seems he meant the surah in general while intending only part of it, since with Ahmad, from Abdul-Razzaq, in the hadith under discussion, it says, "and he concealed for him 'the Day when the sky will bring forth a visible smoke'" [Dukhan 44:10]. Hafiz's wording might give the impression that Ahmad alone mentioned the verse in this hadith, but that is not so, for it is also confirmed in the narrations of Abu Dawud and Tirmidhi. Munziri erred (4162) when he said, in tracing the hadith from Abu Dawud, that Bukhari, Muslim, and Tirmidhi also narrated it, and that their versions do not contain, "and he concealed for him 'the Day when the sky will bring forth a visible smoke'" [Dukhan 44:10], for it is in fact confirmed in Tirmidhi.His statement, "ikhsa," Hafiz said in Fath (10:263), Ibn Battal said, ikhsa is a rebuke used for a dog, to drive it away, this is the original meaning of the word, and the Arabs used it for anyone who said or did something improper that would incur the wrath of Allah. Ibn Faris said in Maqayees Lughah (2:182), the letters kha, seen, and hamza indicate driving away, as one says, "khasat the dog." And in the Quran, "He said, 'Be off into it, and do not speak to Me'" [Muminun 23:108]. A similar account has already passed briefly, from the hadith of Ibn Masud (3610, 4371).