It has reached us that whenever the Messenger of Allah ﷺ threw stones at the first Jamrah, the one nearest to the mosque, he would throw seven pebbles, saying the takbir with each pebble. Then he would stand in front of it, facing the Kabah with his hands raised, supplicating, and he would prolong his standing.Then he would throw stones at the second Jamrah with seven pebbles, saying the takbir with each pebble. Then he would turn left toward the bottom of the valley, where he would stand facing the qiblah with his hands raised, supplicating.Then he would proceed until he came to the Jamrah at al-Aqaba, which he would pelt with seven pebbles, saying the takbir with each pebble. Then he would leave without stopping.Zuhri said, I heard Salim narrate from Ibn Umar from the Prophet ﷺ the same as this, and Ibn Umar used to do likewise.
حدثنا عثمان بن عمر أخبرنا يونس
بلغنا أن رسول الله ﷺ كان إذا رمى الجمرة الأولى التي تلي المسجد رماها بسبع حصيات يكبر مع كل حصاة ثم يقوم أمامها فيستقبل البيت رافعا يديه يدعو وكان يطيل الوقوف ثم يرمي الثانية بسبع حصيات يكبر مع كل حصاة ثم ينصرف ذات اليسار إلى بطن الوادي فيقف ويستقبل القبلة رافعا يديه يدعو ثم يمضي حتى يأتي الجمرة التي عند العقبة فيرميها بسبع حصيات يكبر عند كل حصاة ثم ينصرف ولا يقف قال الزهري سمعت سالما يحدث عن ابن عمر عن النبي ﷺ بمثل هذا وكان ابن عمر يفعل مثل هذا
Its isnad is sahih, even though it appears at first glance to be mursal, because of Zuhri's statement, "It has reached us that the Messenger of Allah..." etc. Then Zuhri connected it immediately after his account by saying, "I heard Salim narrating..." etc. This is clear.Bukhari narrated the hadith in volume 3, pages 466, 465, from this route. He said, "Muhammad said, Uthman bin Umar narrated to us, Yunus informed us, from Zuhri, that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, when he threw the pebbles at the Jamrah..." etc, and he said at the end, "Zuhri said, I heard Salim bin Abdullah narrating something like this from his father from the Prophet ﷺ, and Ibn Umar used to do it."Ibn Hajar said regarding Zuhri's statement "I heard Salim bin Abdullah..." etc, "This is with the isnad that opens the chapter [meaning the isnad of Uthman bin Umar from Yunus from Zuhri]. There is no disagreement among the scholars of hadith that an isnad presented in such a sequence is connected. At most, it is a case of placing the text before part of the chain, and they only disagreed about the permissibility of that."Kirmani made a strange statement, saying, "This hadith is among the mursal narrations of Zuhri, and it does not become musnad by what was mentioned afterward, because he said, 'narrating something like it,' not 'narrating it itself.'" That is what he said.But the narrator's intent by saying "something like it" is nothing other than the thing itself. It is like when someone relates the text with another isnad and does not repeat the text, but instead says "something like it." There is no dispute among the scholars of hadith about ruling such a case as connected, and likewise, according to most of them, if he said "with its meaning," contrary to those who forbid narration by meaning.Ismaili narrated the mentioned hadith from Ibn Najiyah, from Muhammad bin Muthanna and others, from Uthman bin Umar, and said at the end, "Zuhri said, I heard Salim narrating this from his father from the Prophet ﷺ." Thus it is known that what is meant by his saying "something like it" is the thing itself. And when a person speaks outside his field of expertise, he comes up with such astonishing things.I myself think that Ibn Hajar was quite unfair to Kirmani in this, even though his statement is correct in itself.It appears to me that Ibn Hajar did not have Ahmad's narration in the Musnad in mind when he wrote this, for the narration in the Musnad before us clearly indicates that Zuhri's hadith is mursal, because of his statement at the beginning, "It has reached us that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ..." This does not prevent the hadith from being sahih as connected, through the narration that follows it from Zuhri, from Salim, from his father, from the Prophet ﷺ, with something like this.Perhaps Zuhri had not mastered his memorization of what he heard from Salim in its exact wording, but had mastered his memorization of what had reached him as mursal, so he took precaution in narration and related the mursal wording that he was certain of from his memory. Then he mentioned its isnad as connected, from Salim, from his father, from the Prophet ﷺ, with something like this, so it is a connection of the mursal by its meaning. There is no disagreement among the scholars of this discipline that such a case is ruled to be connected, as Ibn Hajar said. So Ibn Hajar was correct when he decisively ruled the hadith as connected, from this angle, and he was correct in his response to Kirmani, in the sense that Kirmani spoke outside his field of expertise, because Kirmani did not mention that he relied in what he said on Ahmad's narration in the Musnad, but rather relied on the apparent wording found in Sahih Bukhari alone. This is because Ahmad's narration negates his claim that this very wording narrated by Zuhri is itself the connected one, when rather what is connected is its meaning, which he stated when he said that Salim narrated it to him from his father, from the Prophet ﷺ, with something like this.Ismaili's narration, which Ibn Hajar relied upon, from the route of Muhammad bin Muthanna and others, does not support him in what he wants, because Imam Ahmad had a stronger memory, was more reliable, and was more precise than Muhammad bin Muthanna and others, so his wording in his narration is a proof against them, and their wording is not a proof against him.In any case, however it may be, the hadith has a connected isnad and its sahih status is by meaning. That is why Bukhari narrated it before this, with similar wording, in volume 3, pages 464, 465, both abridged and in full, with two other isnads, from Yunus, from Zuhri, from Salim, from Ibn Umar, that he used to throw the pebbles at the Jamrah, etc, and would say, "This is how I saw the Prophet ﷺ do it." This is certainly a narration by meaning.Here, in manuscript H, it occurs as "until he comes to the Jamrah that is at Aqabah," with the addition of the word "day," which is an error with no meaning, and omitting it, as found in manuscripts K and M, is the correct reading.