Ahmad 6556

There is a problem in its chain of transmission, but the view I consider more likely correct is that it is sahih, as we will explain, Allah willing. Awf is Ibn Abu Jamila Arabi, whose reliability was already established at 399, and this is supported here by Ahmad's statement, "trustworthy, sound in hadith." Nasai said, "reliable." Ibn Main, Ibn Saad, and others also considered him reliable. Bukhari gave his biography in Tarikh al-Kabir 4/1/58 and said, "He is called Arabi, though he was not actually a Bedouin," meaning that this was a nickname for him, not a description. Ibn Abu Hatim gave his biography in Jarh wal-Tadil 3/2/15, and so did Ibn Saad in Tabaqat 7/2/22.Maymun bin Ustaz Khazzaz was a trustworthy Tabii. Bukhari gave his biography in Tarikh al-Kabir 4/1/339 and said, "Maymun bin Ustaz, narrating from Abdullah bin Amr, and Humayd, Jareeri, and Awf narrated from him," making no mention of any criticism of him. Ibn Hajar gave his biography in Tajil 417, mentioning that Ibn Main considered him reliable, and said, "Ibn Madini said, 'Yahya Qattan did not narrate from him.'" But he did nothing with this, rather he merely quoted what Husayni said in Ikmal (p. 110) without responding to it at all. This is a confusion on the part of Husayni, who merged one biography into another because of a similar name.For there is, among them, another narrator, also a Tabii, named Maymun Abu Abdullah, the Basran, the Qurashi, their mawla. Bukhari gave his biography in Tarikh al-Kabir immediately after the biography of Maymun bin Ustaz, saying, "Maymun Abu Abdullah, the mawla of Abdul-Rahman bin Samura Qurashi, counted among the Basrans, heard from Zayd bin Arqam and Bara, and Shuba, Khalid, Qatada, and Awf narrated from him. Ishaq bin Uthman ascribed his lineage." Ishaq said, on the authority of Ali, meaning Ibn Madini, "Yahya," meaning Qattan, "did not narrate from him." This latter individual has a biography in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib 10:293-294, where it states, "Ibn Madini said, 'I asked Yahya bin Saeed,' meaning Qattan, 'about Maymun Abu Abdullah, from whom Awf narrated,' and his face showed displeasure, and he said, 'Shuba claimed that he was paralyzed.' He also said, 'Yahya did not narrate from him.'" Athram reported from Ahmad, "His hadiths are objectionable." Ishaq bin Mansur reported from Yahya bin Main, "He is nothing." Abu Dawud said, "He has been criticized." Ibn Hibban mentioned him in Thiqat and said, "Yahya Qattan held a poor opinion of him." This is the exact text found in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, quoting from its source, namely Tahzib Kamal by Mizzi. This is a straightforward account, with nothing wrong in it, but Husayni came and conflated the two biographies.He stated that Ibn Main considered Maymun bin Ustaz reliable, and he quoted Ibn Madini's statement regarding Maymun Abu Abdullah as though it applied to the same person. He further added, making Maymun bin Ustaz Khazzaz a Basran, and stated that he narrated from Abdullah bin Umar, Bara bin Azib, and Abdullah bin Burayda. But the one who narrated from Bara and Ibn Burayda is Maymun Abu Abdullah, as is clear from his biography in Tarikh al-Kabir and Tahdhib al-Tahdhib. The two imams of jarh wa tadil, Bukhari, as we mentioned, and Yahya bin Main, distinguished between the two narrators with an explicit statement. Dulabi narrated in Kuna 2:61, "I heard Abbas bin Muhammad say, 'I heard Yahya bin Main say, "Abu Abdullah Haddad narrated from Maymun Abu Abdullah, and he is not Maymun bin Ustaz. Shuba and Khalid Haddan also narrated from this Maymun Abu Abdullah."'"When the matter became confused for Ibn Hajar, he stated in Taqrib, adding a biography that is not found in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib and which the author of Khulasa did not mention either. He said in Taqrib, "Maymun bin Ustaz, it is said that he is Maymun Abu Abdullah, whose biography will come later!" Then this doubt settled in his mind without verification, so he added, in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, to the biography of Maymun Abu Abdullah, the statement, "I say, this Maymun was attributed by some narrators from Awf as Maymun bin Ustaz!!" There is no greater confusion than this. Had he been consistent with himself, he would not have followed Husayni in the biography of Maymun bin Ustaz in Tajil, or he would have corrected him by noting that he is the one whose biography appears in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, as was his habit in similar cases. But he failed to verify this point, and had he done so, he would have arrived at the clear truth, Allah willing, and he would have realized that the one whom Yahya bin Main considered reliable is different from the one about whom he said, "He is nothing."Ustaz is spelled with a fatha on the hamza, a sukun on the plain sin, and ending in a dotted dhal, as vocalized in Mushtabih by Zahabi (p. 10). It occurs in Taqrib without a dot over the dhal, and likewise in Kuna by Dulabi, and likewise in manuscript H of the Musnad, but it is clearly written with the dotted dhal in manuscript M, and in Tarikh al-Kabir, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, and Ikmal by Husayni. It occurs in Tajil as "Ashtaz," which is an ugly distortion by the copyist or the printer.Hazzani is spelled with a kasra on the ha and a shadda on the zay and nun, a nisba to Banu Hazzan bin Sabbah, with a damma on the plain sad and a light unshaddaded ba, bin Atik, from Anaza. See Ishtiqaq by Ibn Duraid (p. 194), Sifat Jazirat Arab by Hamdani (p. 162), and Ansab by Samani (folio 590).As for Abdullah bin Amr Hazzani, this name was inserted into the chain at this point, between the Tabii Maymun bin Ustaz and the Companion Abdullah bin Amr bin As, and its apparent wording gives the impression that he is the one who narrated the hadith from Abdullah bin Amr bin As. But is this correct and firmly established in the original text of the Musnad, or is it an error by one of the early copyists, or is it an error in the narration originating from the source itself? We cannot decisively determine any of this, but I consider it more likely that it is an error by one of the early copyists, for the biographers of narrators did not give him a biography, nor did they ever refer to him in their biographical works, as far as I know. Rather, everyone who gave a biography of Maymun bin Ustaz stated explicitly that he narrated from Abdullah bin Amr bin As, and had this man been present before them in the chain, they would have referred to him, Allah willing, either with a biography if they knew of one, or by explaining that he was an addition inserted into the chain in some versions of the narration, just as Imam Ahmad pointed out another error in a different chain of this same hadith, when he narrated it again with two chains, 6947 and 6948, as will become clear when we trace the hadith's sources.Indeed, Haythami did refer to him in an unclear manner, as we will mention, Allah willing, but this does not indicate that his presence in this chain is established with the certainty that he is part of the original text of the Musnad. As for "Amr" in the lineage of this interpolated narrator, it appears in manuscript H and in all the additional notes as "Umar" without a waw, but we have adopted what is in manuscript M. As for "Hazzani" in his nisba, it appears in manuscript H as "Hadhani," with a dhal instead of a zay, which is a distortion and an error.This hadith will come in the Musnad at 6947 with wording similar to this, narrated from Ishaq Azraq and Hawza bin Khalifa, from Awf, from Maymun bin Ustaz, from Abdullah bin Amr, meaning Ibn As, as a marfu report. Then Imam Ahmad narrated it at 6948, from Yazid bin Harun, from Jareeri, from Maymun bin Ustaz, from Sadafi, from Abdullah bin Amr, from the Prophet ﷺ, who said, "Whoever among my nation dies while drinking wine, Allah will forbid him from drinking it in Paradise, and whoever among my nation dies while adorning himself with gold, Allah will forbid him from wearing it in Paradise."Thus Jareeri added into the chain the one he named Sadafi, between the Tabii Maymun bin Ustaz and the Companion Abdullah bin Amr, and he added into the text of the hadith the mention of drinking wine, while omitting from it the wearing of silk. Abdullah bin Ahmad explained there the problem with this narration, because his father the Imam had struck it out, saying, "My father struck out this hadith." I think he struck it out because it is an error, for it is actually Maymun bin Ustaz from Abdullah bin Amr, without "from Sadafi" in it. It is said that this Maymun is the same as Sadafi, because Yazid bin Harun's hearing from Jareeri was in the latter part of Jareeri's life. This is a good explanation from Abdullah bin Ahmad, and it supports our explanation, negating the addition of "Abdullah bin Amr Hazzani" in this chain.Haythami mentioned this hadith in Majma al-Zawaid 5:145, quoting from this passage of the Musnad with its wording, and said, "Ahmad and Tabarani narrated it," adding, "and whoever among my nation dies drinking wine, Allah will forbid him from drinking it in the Hereafter. And Maymun bin Ustaz [sic], from Abdullah bin Umar [sic] Hazzani, I do not know him, but the rest of his narrators are reliable!!" He mentioned it again at 5:74 with the wording that will come at 6948, which we have just quoted, and said, "Ahmad, Bazzar, and Tabarani narrated it, and its narrators are reliable!!" Munziri mentioned it in Targhib wal-Tarhib 3:187 with the latter wording, and said, "Ahmad and Tabarani narrated it, and Ahmad's narrators are reliable."We note, first, that the wording which Haythami and Munziri asserted to have reliable narrators according to Ahmad is the wording of the chain that Abdullah bin Ahmad explicitly stated his father had struck out, explaining it away by concluding it was likely an error from Yazid bin Harun, so their statement cannot be correct in light of that. Second, Haythami mentioned in the other place the addition by Tabarani regarding drinking wine, which gives the false impression that Ahmad did not narrate it, and he did not attribute the hadith to Bazzar, giving the false impression that he did not narrate the hadith with both its wordings, whereas he did mention the version containing the drinking of wine and attributed it to both Ahmad and Bazzar!! Third, when he criticized the chain, he said, "Maymun bin Ustaz, from Abdullah bin Umar Hazzani, I do not know him," which is wording that gives the false impression that this is a declaration of unknown status for both the narrator and his teacher, whereas the unknown individual, for whom no biography exists, is only this teacher who was inserted into the chain.The word "Allah" near the end of the hadith is not mentioned in manuscript H, and we have included it based on manuscript M and the rest of the sources.