Ahmad 6808

Its chain of transmission is sahih. Sufyan Thawri's doubt here about whether it is a marfu narration does not weaken it, for reasons we will mention, Allah willing.Abu Musa is mentioned here as someone virtually unknown. Bukhari gave him a biographical entry in al-Kuna, number 245, saying, "Abu Musa Hadhdha." Abu Naeem said, "Sufyan narrated to us from Habib, from Abu Musa, from Abdullah bin Amr, from the Prophet ﷺ." And Isa bin Musa and Qutba bin Abdul-Aziz said, from Amash, from Habib bin Abu Thabit, from Abdullah bin Amr. This is Bukhari's reference to this same hadith, both by the chain given here and by another chain, and perhaps one of the narrators dropped out of it, whether through a copyist's or printer's error, as will become clear, Allah willing.Dhahabi gave him a biographical entry in al-Mizan, 3:383, saying, "Abu Musa Hadhdha, from Abdullah bin Amr, concerning prayer while seated, is unknown. Habib bin Abu Thabit alone narrated from him. He may be Abdullah bin Babah, for Amash heard from Habib narrating from him." Then, after him, the author of al-Tahdheeb said, "Abu Musa Hadhdha Makki, who has a narration from Abdullah bin Amr, his name is Suhayb, and Amr bin Dinar narrated from him." I say (Dhahabi speaking), "He is the same as the first one. The basis for distinguishing between them has not become clear to me, and he should be considered truthful (sadooq)." The phrase "has not become clear to me" appears to be, as far as I can tell, the original wording in the printed Mizan, and its distortion is a clear printing error.The Suhayb to whom Dhahabi referred is Suhayb Hadhdha, freed slave of Ibn Amir, whose reliability was already established at number 6550, where we referred to his biographical entry in al-Tarikh, 2/2/317, though it did not mention his kunya. Its exact wording is, "Suhayb Hadhdha, freed slave of Banu Amir, narrated from Abdullah bin Amr, and Amr bin Dinar narrated from him." This is Bukhari's reference to hadith 6550, so it seems he was inclined to distinguish between him and Abu Musa Hadhdha, apparently not being certain about his kunya, and thus leaning toward the view that they are two different people. Abu Hatim followed him in this, while others disagreed with them both. In al-Tahdheeb, 4:440, it says, "Abu Hatim distinguished between him and Abu Musa Hadhdha. He also narrated from Abdullah bin Amr, and Habib bin Abu Thabit and Mujahid narrated from him, and he said of him, 'He is not known and not named.'" I say (Ibn Hajar speaking), "Ibn Qattan said, 'He is not known.' He has a hadith with him (that is, with Nasai) about killing a sparrow without just cause" (that is hadith 6550). Ibn Abu Hatim said, "Sufyan narrated from Habib bin Abu Thabit, from Abu Musa, and Amash narrated from Habib, from Abdullah bin Babah, in place of Abu Musa." Abu Hatim gave preference to Thawri's version.Then, in al-Tahdheeb, 12:251, he gave a biographical entry for Abu Musa Hadhdha, who narrated from Abdullah bin Amr concerning praying while seated, and then a separate entry for Abu Musa Hadhdha Makki, whose name is Suhayb, saying, "It is possible that he is the same as the one before him." Ibn Hajar, in al-Taqrib, gave Suhayb an entry among the given names, then gave a single combined entry among the kunyas, "Abu Musa Hadhdha Makki, whose name is Suhayb, maqbul, from the fourth generation, though it is said they are two different people." So he leans toward them being one person, while noting the disagreement about it.In my view, based on these indications, the more likely conclusion is that Abu Musa Hadhdha, the narrator of this hadith, is Suhayb Hadhdha, the narrator of hadith 6550. As for those who thought he was Abdullah bin Babah, they were misled by the assumption that Amash narrated it from Habib, from Abdullah bin Babah, from Ibn Amr. But this is neither proof nor anything resembling proof. What appears to be the case is that Habib bin Abu Thabit narrated it from two different people, Abu Musa Hadhdha and Abdullah bin Babah, both of them narrating from Ibn Amr.Suyuti mentioned this hadith in Sharh Muwatta, 1:156, stating that Nasai narrated it through the route of Sufyan Thawri, from Habib, from Abu Musa Hadhdha, from Abdullah bin Amr. I did not find it in Nasai through this particular route, so perhaps it is in Sunan al-Kubra. Ibn Majah narrated it, 1:191, through the route of Yahya bin Adam, from Qutba, from Amash, from Habib bin Abu Thabit, from Abdullah bin Babah, from Abdullah bin Amr. This is the same chain that Bukhari referred to in the passage we quoted from al-Kuna, where he said, "Isa bin Musa and Qutba bin Abdul-Aziz said, from Amash, from Habib bin Abu Thabit, from Abdullah bin Amr." It appears that "from Abdullah bin Babah" dropped out of Bukhari's chain. This is supported by Ibn Abu Hatim's reference to it, in the passage we quoted from al-Tahdheeb, where he mentioned Abdullah bin Babah in the chain.As for Sufyan Thawri's doubt here about whether it is marfu, expressed in his words, "I think it is from the Prophet ﷺ," this does not affect the soundness of the chain. Bukhari referred to it through Abu Naeem's narration from Thawri without mentioning this doubt, and Suyuti likewise reported it from Nasai's narration without the doubt. Perhaps Sufyan was uncertain about it when he narrated it to Waki, but became confident that it was marfu when he narrated it to others. Moreover, this is the kind of hadith that would be considered marfu by ruling even if its wording were mawquf, since it is not the sort of thing known through personal reasoning.Furthermore, Amash corroborated Sufyan by narrating it as marfu without any doubt, as reported by Ibn Majah and others. Beyond all this, the hadith has already been established as sahih through the narration of Thawri himself, from Mansur, from Hilal bin Yasaf, from Abu Yahya, from Abdullah bin Amr, number 1512, in full, and through the narration of Shuba, from Mansur, number 3803, in abbreviated form. We have already discussed that route in the earlier place. Praise be to Allah.