Ahmad 7106

Its chain is sahih, though there is an error in it from some of its narrators. For the hadiths of Abu Ramtha in the Musnad of Ahmad, and in what has been narrated outside the Musnad in other collections, are in reality, or in the strongest probability, about a single incident, whose wording varied among its narrators. Most of its narrations state that Abu Ramtha came to the Prophet ﷺ with his father, or that Abu Ramtha came to the Prophet ﷺ accompanied by his son. Some narrations are abridged and mention neither one nor the other. So it is necessary to investigate which of the two narrations is more sound and preferable, was Abu Ramtha present with his father, or was Abu Ramtha the elder, present with his son?I have exhausted what I was able to reach of the chains of this account, and found that they revolve around the narration of three of the Followers from Abu Ramtha, and then around the narration of nine of the Followers of the Followers from these Followers who narrated from him. The three Followers who narrated it from Abu Ramtha are Iyad bin Laqeet, to whom most of the narrations trace back, Thabit bin Munqidh, and Asim.Thabit bin Munqidh narrated from Abu Ramtha that he was with his father, a single narration, in the Musnad 7114, which I have not found elsewhere. Asim narrated from Abu Ramtha the opposite, that his son was with him, a single narration also in the Musnad 7108, which I have not found elsewhere.The narrators from Iyad bin Laqeet differed on this point. Ubaydullah bin Iyad narrated from him 7109, 7116, as did Sufyan Thawri 7104, 7107, 17566, Ibn Abjar 7110, 17565, 17571, Ali bin Salih 7112, 17567, and Qays bin Rabi 7115, 17569. These five narrated from Iyad bin Laqeet from Abu Ramtha that he was with his father. Meanwhile Ibn Umayr narrated from him 7106, 7111, 7113, 7118, 17564, and Shaybani 17572, these two narrated from Iyad bin Laqeet from Abu Ramtha that his son was with him. These narrations in the Musnad agree with what has been narrated from these same narrators in the other collections that have come to my knowledge.The sound method of criticism, according to the way of the scholars expert in this field, who are the foremost authorities in the world in the criticism of narrations, and whose principles in this regard are the highest, most precise, and most reliable, is to give preference first based on precision and verification, then second based on numerical strength, then by examining the wording of the narrations and preferring whichever is closer to agreement rather than contradiction, and closer to the reasonable understanding rather than the second, anomalous version.What is established upon examination, what the discerning critic can nearly affirm with certainty, and what is preferable upon weighing the evidence, is that Abu Ramtha was with his father, and that whoever among the narrators mentioned otherwise has erred. For most of the narrations revolve around the narration of Iyad bin Laqeet from Abu Ramtha, and five narrators narrated from him that Abu Ramtha was with his father, while two narrated the opposite.It suffices, in preferring the narration of the five from Iyad, that among them is Sufyan Thawri, the commander of the faithful in hadith in his era, as he was described by the leading hafiz scholars, Shuba, Ibn Uyayna, Abu Asim, Ibn Main, and others. Indeed, Ibn Mahdi said, Wahib used to place Sufyan above Malik in precision. Yahya Qattan said, Sufyan is above Malik in every respect, and he also said, No one is more beloved to me than Shuba, and no one equals him in my view, yet when Sufyan differs from him, I take Sufyan's opinion. Shuba said, Sufyan has better memory than I do. Ibn Main said, No one has ever differed with Sufyan on anything except that the correct view was what Sufyan said. Shuba also said, If Sufyan differs from me in a hadith, then the hadith is his.Furthermore, four others corroborated him in this narration. The first of them is Ubaydullah bin Iyad, who is also a trustworthy hafiz, whom Abdullah bin Mubarak used to admire. Abu Naeem said, Ibn Iyad was trustworthy, and he had a written collection containing hadiths. Such a person is thorough in what he narrates, since his narration is supported by written record. Moreover, it is generally the case that he would be more knowledgeable about his own father's hadith than others.The second of them is Ibn Abjar, who is Abdul-Malik bin Saeed bin Hayan bin Abjar, whose reliability was already established at 4623. Thawri said, He narrated to us someone your eyes have never seen the like of, Ibn Abjar. Ajli said, He was trustworthy and firmly reliable in hadith, a follower of the sunnah. Ibn Abu Hatim gave his biography in al-Jarh wal-Tadil 2/2/351-352. Hayan is spelled with the plain ha and the dotted ya. Abjar has a fatha on the hamza and the jim, with a quiescent ba between them.The third and fourth of them are Ali bin Salih and Qays bin Rabi, both trustworthy, though there has been some discussion of their precision. So their corroboration is good and acceptable.As for those who differed from Sufyan and those who followed him, they are two. The first is Ibn Umayr, who is Abdul-Malik bin Umayr bin Suwayd, a trustworthy Follower, except that scholars have discussed his precision, and his memory changed before his death, for he lived 103 years. The second is Shaybani, and it appears that he is Abu Ishaq Shaybani, who is a reliable authority, with no dispute about that. But he and Ibn Umayr cannot be weighed against Thawri alone, let alone against four others who corroborated Thawri.So this is the narration of Iyad bin Laqeet, in which the preferable view is what we have mentioned, a clear and evident preference that nearly reaches certainty. He was corroborated in this by another Follower of unknown standing, Thabit bin Munqidh, whom we will mention at his narration 7114, Allah willing. His narration is suitable for corroboration and citation. He was opposed only by another Follower, al-Asim. It now appears to me that he is Asim bin Sulayman Ahwal, who is a well-known trustworthy narrator, though some have also discussed his precision.Furthermore, the wording of the narrations leaves little doubt in the reader's mind that the more likely scenario is that Abu Ramtha was the one who was with his father. This is something that settles in the reader's heart and brings reassurance, even if one may be unable to establish formal proof for it.As for the statement in the hadith, in this narration, "people from Rabia disputing over blood," this is how it appears in this narration and in the coming narration 7108. But what appears in the earlier narration 7105 is that they were from Banu Yarbu, and likewise in what will come at 17058, that they were from Banu Thalaba bin Yarbu. This latter is perhaps more sound, because Nasai narrated hadiths with multiple chains (2:251) from Thalaba bin Zahdam Yarbui, with a similar meaning, that the incident took place among Banu Thalaba bin Yarbu, and that the Prophet ﷺ said, "No soul shall bear the burden of another." He also narrated something similar from a man of Banu Yarbu, who is perhaps this same Thalaba, and he also narrated this from Tariq Muharibi. The hadith that Nasai narrated from a man of Banu Yarbu is abridged, restricted to the meaning of "no soul shall bear the burden of another," but it is originally longer, as narrated by Ahmad in the Musnad 5:377, from Ashath bin Salim from his father from a man of Banu Yarbu, who said, I came to the Prophet ﷺ, and I heard him speaking to the people, saying, "The upper hand is the giving hand, your mother and your father, your sister and your brother, then the closest to you, then the closest to you." A man then said, "Messenger of Allah, are these the Banu Thalaba bin Yarbu who struck so-and-so?" He said, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, "No soul shall bear the burden of another."This is a sahih hadith. Haythami mentioned its beginning, "The upper hand is the giving hand," and so on, in Majma al-Zawaid 3:98, and said, Ahmad narrated it, and its narrators are the narrators of the Sahih.This hadith resembles in its wording the hadith of Abu Ramtha, and perhaps the two of them, Abu Ramtha and the man from Banu Yarbu, were together in that same gathering. From all of this, we prefer that the incident concerned Banu Yarbu, not Rabia.As for his statement at the end of the hadith, "and he mentioned the account of the seal," this refers to the seal of prophethood, which will be detailed further in some of the coming narrations, Allah willing.