Ahmad 6804

Its chain of transmission is daif, due to uncertainty between whether it was transmitted as mursal or as musnad (connected).Taymi is Sulayman bin Tarkhan. Aslam Ajli, his reliability was already established at 6507.Abu Muriyah, this is how it is established in the three original manuscripts of the Musnad, without an alif after the ra, with two dots above the final ha. In K, additional vocalization marks were added, placing a damma over the mim and a shaddah over the ya. This establishes that it should be read with damma on the mim, fatha on the ra, and doubling of the ya. It is likewise established this way in Kitab al-Ikmal by Husayni, in Majma al-Zawaid, and in Targhib wal-Tarhib, without vocalization marks.The text of his biographical entry in al-Ikmal, page 136, reads, Abu Muriyah, from the Prophet ﷺ, or from Abdullah bin Amr from him, and from him Aslam Ajli narrated. The name of the companion appears there as Abdullah bin Umar, which is a printing or copying error, as is evident.Likewise the entry by Hafiz in al-Tajil, page 519, contains the same error in the companion's name, but there the name of the person being profiled appears as Abu Marayah, with an added alif between the ra and the ya. It is likewise established this way in Tarikh al-Kabir by Bukhari, 1/2/25, in the entry on Aslam Ajli, where he said, from Bishr bin Shighaf, and Abu Marayah. This and that are certainly copying or printing errors.So what is established in the original manuscripts of the Musnad, along with its vocalization in K with a shaddah over the ya, which rules out the presence of an alif before it, and what is established in Majma al-Zawaid and Targhib, supports what we have said. What further reinforces this is that Abu Marayah Ajli, spelled with damma on the mim and fatha on the ra followed by an alif then a light ya, is among the single, non-repeated names and kunyas among biographical entries. Dhahabi mentioned him in al-Mushtabih, page 472, and explicitly noted that he was unique in this spelling. Ibn Salah likewise mentioned him in Ulum al-Hadith, as did those who followed him among those who abridged his book, see Ibn Salah, page 320, and its abridgment by Ibn Kathir with our commentary, al-Baith al-Hathith, page 241 of the second edition, year 1371, and Tadrib al-Rawi, page 228.Indeed, Husayni mentioned in al-Ikmal the entry for Abu Marayah Ajli, then after it Abu Maryam Hanafi, then after that Abu Muriyah. This is the correct arrangement alphabetically, since the first has an alif after the ra, the second has a ya then a mim after the ra, and the third has a ya then a ha after the ra. If the third were the same as the first, it would have been mentioned alongside it, either before or after it. What caused the confusion in al-Tajil is that the second entry, Abu Maryam, was omitted, so the third came to be adjacent to the first, and they were confused due to the similarity of their written forms. So a copyist or printer erred in it, and then the editor of Tarikh al-Kabir fell into the same error, following the printed copy of al-Tajil.So this Abu Muriyah, the narrator of this hadith, is a follower (tabii) who has not been mentioned with any criticism, so he remains in the category of unknown status until his condition becomes clear. Had it been established with certainty that the hadith was connected, from Abdullah bin Amr, then his hadith would be hasan at the least. But there is uncertainty about whether it is connected or mursal, or the narrator from him was uncertain, so the chain is therefore daif on that account.Haythami mentioned the hadith in Majma al-Zawaid, 10:330, and said, Ahmad narrated it with the uncertainty noted, for if it is from Abu Muriyah, then it is mursal and its narrators are trustworthy, and if it is from Abdullah bin Amr, then it is connected and attributed (musnad) and its narrators are trustworthy.Munziri mentioned it in al-Targhib, 4:191, and said, Ahmad narrated it with a good chain of transmission, likewise noting the uncertainty as to whether it is mursal or connected.As for his words, "the two blowers" (al-nafakhan), this is how it appears in the three original manuscripts of the Musnad, while in al-Targhib and al-Zawaid it appears as "the two who blow" (al-nafikhan), which is a variant reading found in the margin of K.