Ahmad 6508

Its isnad is sahih. Yunus is Ibn Ubayd, and Hasan is Basri. We already mentioned in the commentary on 6197, quoting Ibn Hajar, who quoted Ibn Madini, that he was certain Hasan never heard from Abdullah bin Amr bin As. This quotation from Ibn Madini is correct, for it appears in Tahdhib on his authority as well, 2:268, and Ibn Abu Hatim likewise quoted it from him in Maraseel, pages 15-16. However, he was contradicted on this point. Ibn Abu Hatim quoted his father Abu Hatim (page 17) as saying, "It is valid that Hasan heard from Anas bin Malik, Abu Barza, Ahmar the companion of the Prophet ﷺ, Ibn Umar, Ibn Amr, and Ibn Mughaffal." This is an affirmation from Abu Hatim, which takes precedence over the denial from Ibn Madini. Hasan is an early follower who encountered many of the companions, lived alongside them, and heard from them, some of whom were older than Abdullah bin Amr. We only concluded, in that hadith we discussed in the commentary on 6197, that he did not hear it from Abdullah bin Amr, because it came from him in one of the narrations we mentioned there, indicating that he did not hear it from him. This is a judgment restricted to that particular hadith alone, in that specific instance. As for this hadith and other narrations of Hasan from Ibn Amr, they are to be judged as connected, not merely relying on contemporaneity as Muslim held, but rather because meeting and hearing are established, unless it is proven regarding a specific hadith of his that he did not hear it from him.The hadith is the hadith of Abdullah bin Amr, though there is some weak disagreement about this, which we will point out, Allah willing. It will come in the Musnad with a similar meaning at 6987, from the narration of Ikrima, and 7049, from the narration of Shuayb, and 7063, from the narration of Ammara bin Amr bin Hazm, all of them from Abdullah bin Amr. Abu Dawud likewise narrated it at 4342, from the narration of Ammar bin Amr bin Hazm, and 4343, from the narration of Ikrima (4:216-217 of Awn al-Mabud). Ibn Majah narrated it at 2:243, from the narration of Ammara bin Amr bin Hazm. Munziri mentioned it at 4176-4177, regarding the two narrations of Abu Dawud, stating that Nasai narrated them, but I did not find them in his work, and he did not mention the narration of Ibn Majah. Hakim narrated it at 4:435, through the route of Ammara bin Hazm, and said, "sahih in isnad, though the two of them (Bukhari and Muslim) did not include it," and Dhahabi agreed with him.Zamakhshari pointed to this hadith in Faiq 1:138, under the entry hathal, and Ibn Athir in Nihayah under the entries hathal and maraj, both attributing it to the hadith of Ibn Amr. The author of Jam Fawaid mentioned it at 2:283 as follows, "To Ibn Umar, the Prophet ﷺ interlocked his fingers and said, 'How will you be, Abdullah bin Amr, when you remain among the dregs whose covenants and trusts have become confused and who have differed and become like this?'" He said, "How then, Messenger of Allah?" He said, "Take what you recognize and leave what you do not recognize, attend to your own close circle, and leave the masses." He attributed this entire narration completely to Bukhari, and made it a hadith of Abdullah bin Umar bin Khattab, as you see.Haythami mentioned it in Majma al-Zawaid 7:279 as follows, "From Ibn Umar, from the Prophet ﷺ, who said, 'How will you be, Abdullah bin Umar [sic], when you remain among the dregs of people whose covenants and trusts have become confused, and who have differed and become like this?' interlocking his fingers." He said, "How then, Messenger of Allah?" He said, "Take what you recognize and leave what you do not recognize, attend to your own close circle, and leave the masses. Narrated by Abu Yaala from his teacher Sufyan bin Waki, and it is daif."As for the narration of Haythami, the more likely explanation to me, since I do not have its isnad before me, is that he found it in Musnad Abu Yaala in this form, as a hadith of Abdullah bin Umar, with the address directed to Abdullah bin Umar, and therefore mentioned it in Zawaid and weakened it by the narration of Sufyan bin Waki. This is the closest explanation for its mention in Zawaid, since it was not narrated in any of the Six Books, as far as we know, as a hadith of Ibn Umar with this address specifically to him, especially since the Hafiz pointed in Fath al-Bari to its narration as a hadith of Ibn Umar, as we will mention his words, Allah willing.As for the problematic case, it is the narration of the author of Jam Fawaid, since he mentioned it as a hadith of Abdullah bin Umar, while the address in it was to Abdullah bin Amr, and he attributed the entire narration completely to Bukhari! Indeed, Bukhari did narrate part of this, as we will mention, but he did not narrate it completely, and the wording of the isnad in it may create the impression that it is a narration of Ibn Umar. Perhaps this is what caused Zamakhshari and Ibn Athir to be mistaken, making it a hadith of Ibn Umar.Bukhari narrated at 1:468 (1:103 in the Sultani edition), "Hamid bin Umar narrated to us from Bishr, Asim narrated to us, Waqid narrated to us from his father, from Ibn Umar or Ibn Amr, 'The Prophet ﷺ interlocked his fingers and said,' and Asim bin Ali said, 'Asim bin Muhammad narrated to us, I heard this hadith from my father but did not memorize it, so Waqid corrected it for me from his father,' he said, 'I heard my father saying, Abdullah said, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, "Abdullah bin Amr, how will you be when you remain among the dregs of people?"' and so on with this."This hadith is established in some copies of Bukhari narrated by the memorizers, but not established in the rest of them. Therefore Hafiz mentioned in Fath al-Bari 868 that it occurs in some narrations, and he said, "It is not in most narrations, and neither Ismaili nor Abu Naeem extracted it. Rather, Abu Masud mentioned it in Atraf from the narration of Ibn Rumayh from Firabri and Hammad bin Shakir, both from Bukhari," and he mentioned the text of the hadith, then said, "Humaydi related it in Jam Bayn Sahihayn, quoting from Abu Masud, and he added, 'Their covenants and trusts have become confused, and they have differed and become like this,' interlocking his fingers," and so on with the hadith.The hadith of Asim bin Ali, which Bukhari cited with a suspended chain, was connected by Ibrahim Harbi in his Gharib Hadith, he said, "Asim bin Ali narrated to us, Asim bin Muhammad narrated to us from Waqid, I heard my father say, Abdullah said, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said," and he mentioned it.This narration of Bukhari indicates that Asim bin Muhammad bin Zayd bin Abdullah bin Umar bin Khattab heard this hadith from his father Muhammad bin Zayd, but did not memorize it from his father, so he narrated it from his brother Waqid bin Muhammad bin Zayd, from their father Muhammad bin Zayd, and that Muhammad bin Zayd narrated it from one of the two companions, either Abdullah bin Umar bin Khattab or Abdullah bin Amr bin As, that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said that addressing Abdullah bin Amr bin As, without hesitation or doubt about that. Rather the doubt was only about who reported it, whether it was his grandfather Abdullah bin Umar, or the subject of the story Abdullah bin Amr.However, it appears that some narrators became confused and the matter was mixed up for them, so they thought that the narration of Waqid from his father was specifically from Abdullah bin Umar without doubt, and so narrated it this way with certainty. From this, in my view, comes what the author of Jam Fawaid quoted and attributed to Bukhari, even though what is actually in Bukhari is the doubt between Ibn Umar and Ibn Amr. Likewise for what came in Majma al-Zawaid from Abu Yaala.Indeed, even Ibn Hajar himself fell into this same confusion, asserting definitively that this narration is specifically about Abdullah bin Umar, even though Muhammad bin Zayd explicitly stated the doubt in the narration of Bukhari from Hamid bin Umar, and was cautious in naming the companion in the narration of Bukhari from Asim bin Ali, saying, "Abdullah said," to allow for the possibility that it could be either Ibn Umar or Ibn Amr, as is clearly evident without any doubt.Ibn Hajar said, regarding Bukhari's statement, "Chapter, when he remains among the dregs of the people," 13:32-33, "This heading is the wording of a hadith extracted by Tabarani, and graded sahih by Ibn Hibban, through the route of Ala bin Abdul-Rahman bin Yaqub, from his father, from Abu Hurairah, who said, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, 'How will you be, Abdullah bin Amr, when you remain among the dregs of people whose covenants and trusts have become confused, and who have differed and become like this?' interlocking his fingers. He said, 'What do you command me?' He said, 'Attend to your own close circle, and leave aside the masses.'"Ibn Battal said, "Bukhari pointed to this hadith but did not extract it, because Ala does not meet his standard."Then Hafiz said, "It has come from Ibn Umar in a manner similar to the hadith of Abu Hurairah, extracted by Hanbal bin Ishaq in his book on Fitan, through the route of Asim bin Muhammad, from his brother Waqid, and it has already been mentioned earlier in the chapters on mosques from the Book of Prayer," meaning what we referred to earlier in Bukhari at 1:468, "through the route of Waqid, who is Ibn Muhammad bin Zayd bin Abdullah bin Umar, I heard my father say, Abdullah bin Umar said, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, 'Abdullah bin Amr, how will you be when you remain among the dregs of people?'" This is where what is in Bukhari ends, and the rest of it, according to Hanbal, is the same as the hadith of Abu Hurairah, with the addition, "He said, 'How do you command me then, Messenger of Allah?' He said, 'Take what you recognize and leave what you do not recognize, attend to your own close circle, and leave aside the masses.'" Abu Yaala extracted it from this same route.Tabarani extracted, from the hadith of Abdullah bin Amr himself, through several routes, some with sahih isnad, containing, "They said, 'How, Messenger of Allah?' He said, 'You take what you recognize,'" and he mentioned it similarly using the plural form throughout.Tabarani and Ibn Adi extracted it through the route of Abdul-Hameed bin Jafar bin Hakam, from his father, from Ilba, with kasra on the ain, sukun on the lam after it, then a letter ba with a long vowel, as a raised hadith, "The Hour will not come except upon dregs of people," and so on with the hadith.Tabarani has from the hadith of Sahl bin Saad, who said, "The Messenger of Allah ﷺ came out to us while we were in a gathering that included Amr bin As and his son, and he said," and he mentioned something similar, adding, "Beware of excess in the religion of Allah."This is what Hafiz said, and we will follow his statement with commentary or confirmation, in detail as much as possible, until the correct picture becomes clear on this, Allah willing.First, the hadith of Abu Hurairah, which he attributed to Tabarani and Ibn Hibban, I did not find it in any of the Six Books, and the author of Majma al-Zawaid did not mention it, nor did the author of Jam Fawaid, so I cannot assert definitively that it is in the Six Books, nor that it is among the additional narrations (Zawaid). I did not find it in the Musnad of Abu Hurairah within this Musnad.Second, Hafiz attributed the hadith of Ibn Umar bin Khattab to the book on Fitan by Hanbal bin Ishaq, and I do not know whether it is there explicitly stated as a narration of Abdullah bin Umar, or whether it has the doubt between Ibn Umar and Ibn Amr, like the narration of Bukhari we mentioned earlier.Third, Hafiz asserted definitively that this route, meaning the route of Asim bin Muhammad from his brother Waqid, which he attributed to Hanbal bin Ishaq, and whose narration he referred back to the narration of Bukhari in the chapters on mosques from the Book of Prayer, is from the narration of Abdullah bin Umar, then when he quoted it here from that place in Bukhari, he mentioned the name Abdullah bin Umar in full, while what is in Bukhari, from Waqid, is, "I heard my father say, Abdullah said," being cautious and not stating explicitly whether it is Ibn Umar or Ibn Amr, as we pointed out earlier. Likewise, the name was not mentioned in full in the narration of Ibrahim Harbi which Hafiz mentioned in his discussion at that point. So I do not know from where he got "from Ibn Umar," and how he mentioned the full name Abdullah bin Umar at this point, quoting from Bukhari, when this is not what is in Bukhari?Fourth, his statement that Abu Yaala narrated it through this route, meaning through the route of Waqid bin Muhammad from his father, perhaps goes back to what is in Majma al-Zawaid 7:279, making it a narration of Ibn Umar and making the address to him, an error in the copy that came to Hafiz Haythami from Musnad Abu Yaala, because the hadith in Bukhari has the address to Abdullah bin Amr, along with doubt about whether it is a narration of Ibn Umar or Ibn Amr.Fifth, we are astonished at Hafiz for mentioning the hadith as a hadith of Ibn Amr himself, and that it has a similar meaning using the plural form throughout, while attributing it to Tabarani alone, even though it exists with this wording and in plural form in Sunan Abu Dawud, Sunan Ibn Majah, and Mustadrak, and also in the Musnad at 7063, from the narration of Ammara bin Amr bin Hazm from Ibn Amr, and it is likewise in the Musnad at 7049, from the narration of Amr bin Shuayb from his father from his grandfather, as we have explained all of this before! So why go far afield, abandoning the Sunan and the Musnad, and turning to Tabarani?Sixth, the hadith of Ilba, who is Sulami, will come in the Musnad at 16139, and Bukhari likewise narrated it in Tarikh al-Kabir 4/1/77, from Ahmad bin Hanbal, with his isnad that will come in the Musnad. Hakim narrated it in Mustadrak 4:495-496, from Qutayi, from Abdullah bin Ahmad, from his father, matching the narration of the Musnad, and graded it sahih, and Dhahabi agreed with him. Hafiz pointed to it in Isaba 4:261, from the narration of Hakim, but did not mention that it is in the Musnad, so perhaps he did not come across it there.Seventh, the hadith of Sahl bin Saad, which Hafiz mentioned from Tabarani, was likewise quoted by Haythami in Majma al-Zawaid 7:279, and he said, "Tabarani narrated it with two isnads, the men of one of which are reliable."This is what I have been able to gather of the narrations of this hadith, and if I find anything after this, I will mention it in the addenda, Allah willing.Hathala, with damma on the ha and takhfif on the tha, is defined in Lisan as follows, "Hathala and hathal, the inferior part of anything, and it is also said, it is the husk of dates, barley, rice, and similar things, and everything that has husk after being purified," then he said in interpreting this hadith, "By hathalat al-nas he meant the inferior and worst of them, and its origin is from the hathala of dates and its hafala, which is the worst part, having no good in it, that which remains at the bottom of the basket, and hafala with fa instead of tha carries the same meaning as hathala." Therefore Bukhari said in Sahih, in another hadith, 11:214-215, Abu Abdullah said, "It is said, hafala and hathala." In Lisan, under the entry hathal, there is support for this, including his statement, "Hathala is like hafala," Asmai said, "It is from their hathala and hafala, meaning from among them are those with no good in them," he said, "It is the inferior part of anything.""Maraja their covenants" means became mixed and disturbed and confused so that no clear way through them could be found. It carries fatha on the mim and kasra on the ra, though some vowel it with fatha on the ra. The author of Lisan quoted from Muhkam that the kasra is the original form, and likewise Ibn Qattaa said in Kitab Afaal 3:160-161, "Maraja the matter, the religion, and the ring on the hand, marajan, meant became disturbed," and he vowelled the verb with kasra on the ra.