Ahmad 6622

Its isnad is sahih. Yunus bin Muhammad bin Muslim Baghdadi is a trustworthy hafiz among the teachers of Ahmad, whose reliability was established earlier at 2187, and it is worth adding here that Bukhari included his biography in Al-Kabir 4/2/410, and in Al-Sagheer 229, and Ibn Saad in Al-Tabaqat 7/2/79.Hilal bin Ali is Hilal bin Abu Maymuna, who is also known as Hilal bin Abu Hilal. He is trustworthy, Daraqutni rated him trustworthy, Ibn Hibban listed him among the trustworthy narrators, and Bukhari included his biography in Al-Kabir 4/2/204-205, saying, "He heard several things," and the compilers of the six books all narrated from him.This hadith was narrated by Bukhari 4:287-288 from Muhammad bin Sinan from Fulayh, with this same isnad, in similar wording, but he did not mention at the end the report of Ata from Kaab Ahbar. He then narrated it in abridged form at 8:449-450 through Abdul-Aziz bin Abu Salama from Hilal, and likewise narrated it in Adab al-Mufrad 38-39 through both routes.Ibn Saad narrated it in Al-Tabaqat 1/2/88 through Abdul-Aziz bin Abu Salama Majishun, and also through Fulayh, both of them from Hilal, with this same isnad, in similar wording, then he cited Kaab's statement from the report of Fulayh alone.Tabari narrated it in his tafsir 9:57 (Tabari 15225-15227) through Uthman bin Umar from Fulayh, with this same isnad, in similar wording, and included in it the statement of Kaab Ahbar. He then narrated it through Musa bin Dawud, a teacher of Ahmad here, from Fulayh, without giving its wording but instead referring back to the preceding report. He then narrated it also through Musa from Abdul-Aziz bin Abu Salama (from Hilal bin Ali from Ata bin Yasar from Abdullah, in similar wording, without Kaab's statement in it).In Tabari's text it appears as "Abdul-Aziz bin Salama," which is an error of a copyist or printer. Ibn Kathir mentioned it in his tafsir 3:567 from Tabari's report, then pointed to Bukhari's version of it. Suyuti likewise narrated it in Durr Manthur 3:131, and additionally attributed it to Bayhaqi in Dalail, but did not mention Kaab Ahbar's statement at the end. Ibn Kathir also cited it at 6:571 from this very place in the Musnad, and also from Ibn Abu Hatim.The words "sikhab" and "sikhab" (with either sin or sad) come from "sakhab" or "sakhab," with fatha on the sin or sad and fatha on the khaa, meaning the clamor of raised voices in a quarrel. Ibn Faris said in Maqayees Al-Lugha 3:321, "The letters sad, khaa, and baa form a sound root indicating a loud sound, from which comes sakhab, meaning noise and commotion," and he did not mention it under the letter sin. In Lisan Arab 1:444 it says, "Sad and sin may interchange in any word containing khaa," though at 2:9 it says, "The form with sin is an ugly dialectal variant of the tribe of Rabia."As for the foreign flavor in Kaab Ahbar's speech, about which Ata says, "except that Kaab speaks it in his own tongue," and so on, this, in my view, is a trace of Hebrew or Syriac influence on his speech. Tabari transmitted it in the report of Uthman bin Umar from Fulayh with the wording, "taluqan, samutan, amutan," then transmitted it from the report of Musa bin Dawud, a teacher of Ahmad here, from Fulayh, with the wording, "amutan, samutan, taluqan." What appears in the manuscript does not match Tabari's first report through the route of Uthman bin Umar from Fulayh.