Ahmad 6586

Its isnad is sahih, based on what appears on its surface, which might give the impression that the tabii who narrates it is unnamed, as we will explain, Allah willing. Sufyan is Thawri. Ibrahim bin Muhammad bin Muntashir is trustworthy, Ahmad, Ibn Main, Abu Hatim and others confirmed his reliability, and Bukhari mentioned him in al-Kabir 1/1/320. His father Muhammad bin Muntashir bin Ajda Hamdani Kufi was a trustworthy tabii, confirmed reliable by Ahmad, Ibn Saad and others, and he was the nephew of Masruq bin Ajda, from whose uncle he narrated this hadith. Bukhari mentioned him in al-Kabir 1/1/219 and said, "He heard from Ayesha, Ibn Umar, and Amr bin Shurahbil."Haythami mentioned the hadith in Majma al-Zawaid 1:19 and said, "Ahmad and Tabarani narrated it in al-Kabir, and its narrators are the narrators of the sahih, except for the tabii, who is not named." Tabarani narrated it making it a narration of Masruq from Abdullah bin Amr. What Haythami said here was preceded by Hafiz Husayni in al-Ikmal (p. 152), who, pointing to this hadith, said, "Masruq, from a man who stayed with him, from Abdullah bin Amr bin As," with the hadith, "He met Allah associating nothing with Him." Hafiz Ibn Hajar followed him in al-Tajil (p. 549), mentioning something similar.In my view this is a mistake on their part, the wording of the isnad confused them, since its surface appearance suggests that Masruq narrated this from the man who stayed with him. But I believe the wording rejects this if the researcher examines it carefully and patiently. For if its surface wording had led to what they concluded, it would have been a narration of Muhammad bin Muntashir from this weak, unnamed man, because Muhammad bin Muntashir is relating a story in which he says, "A man stayed with Masruq, and said, 'I heard Abdullah bin Amr bin As...'" in Abu Ahmad Zubayri's version, or, "A man or an elderly man from the people of Madinah came and stayed with Masruq, and said, 'I heard Abdullah bin Amr...'" in Abu Naeem's version.If the hadith from Abdullah bin Amr had come through the narration of this unnamed man, it would have been a narration of Muhammad bin Muntashir from this man, since he is relating a story he witnessed and was present for. Anyone knowledgeable about the paths of narrators would hardly doubt that this story is being narrated by Muhammad bin Muntashir about something he witnessed in the presence of his uncle Masruq, and that it contains some abridgment and omission. It may have been a conversation that took place between Masruq and his guest, which led Masruq to narrate this hadith to him from Abdullah bin Amr. As for the notion that the hadith was, as they supposed, from Masruq from the unnamed man, the wording does not indicate this at all. And as for it being from Muhammad bin Muntashir from the unnamed man, that is a remote possibility, and had that been what was intended, the wording would have been phrased differently and more clearly to indicate it. So it appears, almost certainly, that the pronoun in his statement, "and said, 'I heard Abdullah bin Amr,'" refers back to Masruq, Allah willing.This is further supported and confirmed by what Haythami related, that Tabarani made it a narration of Masruq from Abdullah bin Amr, which removes the confusion and eliminates the remote possibility. I wish Haythami had cited the wording of Tabarani's narration, so that it would settle the matter conclusively. We do not have Tabarani's book with us to quote its text directly, so for now we can only rely on what Haythami related from it.There remains a point relating to the phrasing of the isnad. Imam Ahmad narrated it from his teachers Abu Ahmad Zubayri and Abu Naeem Fadl bin Dukayn, both from Sufyan Thawri, from Ibrahim bin Muhammad bin Muntashir, from his father. Ahmad then said following this, "This is in the hadith of Abu Ahmad Zubayri, who said, 'A man stayed...'" and so on, intending to clarify Abu Ahmad's exact wording, and the difference between his wording and that of Abu Naeem's narration. So his statement, "he said, 'A man stayed,'" is connected to the isnad, and the pronoun in it refers back to Muhammad bin Muntashir, he is the one who says, "A man stayed." This is self-evident, not hidden from anyone who has any grasp of the craft of isnad analysis.Imam Ahmad then returned to the narration of his other teacher, Abu Naeem, after completing the wording of Zubayri's narration, and said, "Abu Naeem said in his hadith, 'A man came...'" This too is connected to the preceding isnad, and the one who says "a man came" is Muhammad bin Muntashir, the pronoun referring to him, not to Abu Naeem. This is likewise self-evident, just as the previous case, even though its surface appearance could mislead someone unfamiliar with isnad analysis into error.This very error was made by a man of our own era, one who has the honor of being associated with the service of this great Musnad. He made the hadith into a hadith of Abu Naeem, in his book al-Fath al-Rabbani (1:54), presenting it as, "And from Abu Naeem, who said, 'A man came...'" and so on, even though he mentioned the isnad in his commentary at the bottom of the page. He assumed, with certainty about something he had no knowledge of, that Abu Naeem was the topmost narrator of the hadith, the one who narrates or relates it from Masruq, missing the fact that Abu Naeem is actually the lowest narrator, the one from whom Ahmad bin Hanbal narrates, and that the topmost narrator who relates the story is Muhammad bin Muntashir. May Allah guide us and him.As for Abdullah bin Ahmad's statement at the end of the hadith, "The correct version is what Abu Naeem said," I do not know what he means by it. There is no difference between his narration and Zubayri's narration that would come down to a matter of correctness versus error. The difference between them lies only in some added or omitted wording in the account of the beginning of the story, and in the wording of the raised hadith itself, and the difference in the wording of the beginning of the story is not significant at all, it hardly even counts as a difference. As for the addition in the raised wording found in Abu Ahmad Zubayri's version, it is an addition from a trustworthy narrator, which must be accepted, and the narration of one who omitted it cannot be given precedence over it except by strong evidence requiring that, and no such evidence exists. Rather, the other evidence supports it, for the proofs from the Book and the Sunnah are in agreement that whoever meets Allah associating nothing with Him enters Paradise, and whoever meets Him while associating partners with Him enters the Fire. This is among the self-evident matters of Islam.His statement, "what Abu Naeem said," appears in m and k as "what he said," without the pronoun.