Ahmad 7129

Its chain of transmission is sahih, despite the flaw they attributed to it, which does not hold up to scrutiny, as we will explain, Allah willing.Awwam bin Hawshab is a trustworthy, well known, and reliable narrator. The compilers of the six books narrated from him. His reliability was established previously at 1228 and 5468.Abdullah bin Saaib is Kindi. His reliability was established previously at 3666, and we add here that Ibn Main, Abu Hatim, and others confirmed his reliability, and that Muslim narrated a hadith from him in his Sahih on sharecropping (1:455), and Nasai narrated another hadith from him about the Prophet conveying greetings to his nation (1:189), which is the hadith mentioned earlier at 3666. He has no other entries in the six books besides these two.In Tahdhib, there is another view that he is Shaybani, but this appears to be an error, because Shaybani is a different person altogether. Ibn Abu Hatim gave his biography (65/2/2), as the fifth of five men named Abdullah bin Saaib, and mentioned regarding Shaybani that he narrates from his father from Abdullah bin Amr, and stated that he is unknown.Also in Tahdhib, in the biography of Kindi, it states that he narrates from Abu Hurairah, or from a man from him. This is a reference to the flaw we will mention and demonstrate to be weak.Ibn Abu Hatim gave a biography of Kindi and mentioned his reliability, then gave a separate second biography, which is the one the author of Tahdhib followed in this reference. Ibn Abu Hatim said, "Abdullah bin Saaib narrated from a man from Abu Hurairah, and Awwam bin Hawshab narrated from him. I heard my father say this, and he would say, 'They say he is Kindi.'"This second biography is based on the weak, outweighed narration by which they attributed this flaw to this hadith. The correct view is that he is one man, who narrated this hadith directly from Abu Hurairah, with no intermediary between them. This is why Ibn Hibban gave him a single biography in Thiqat (p. 240), without mentioning this uncertainty that Ibn Abu Hatim mentioned and that the author of Tahdhib followed him in.As for Hakim's statement, which we will mention below, "Muslim relied on Abdullah bin Saaib bin Abu Saaib Ansari," and Dhahabi's agreement with him, this is a slip on the part of both of them. The one Muslim relied on is Abdullah bin Saaib Kindi. There is no narrator among the transmitters named Abdullah bin Saaib bin Abu Saaib Ansari. Rather, that is Abdullah bin Saaib bin Abu Saaib Makhzumi, the Quran reciter of the people of Makkah, who was Qurashi, and he and his father had companionship with the Prophet.The hadith will come again in similar form at 10584, narrated by Ahmad from Yazid bin Harun from Awwam bin Hawshab, "Abdullah bin Saaib narrated to me from a man from the Ansar from Abu Hurairah." Haythami mentioned it in Majma al-Zawaid (5:224) in abbreviated form, and said, "Part of it is in the Sahih," then said, "Ahmad narrated it, and it contains an unnamed man." He is referring to the chain at 10584. The apparent meaning of this is that Abdullah bin Saaib did not narrate it from Abu Hurairah directly, but rather narrated it from an unnamed man from the Ansar from Abu Hurairah.However, tracing the various narrations shows us that this addition, the addition of the unnamed man in the chain, is an error, or at the very least there is great doubt about its correctness. Hakim narrated this hadith in Mustadrak (1:119-120) in wording similar to what is here, via the route of Saeed bin Masud, "Yazid bin Harun narrated to us, Awwam bin Hawshab informed us, from Abdullah bin Saaib Ansari, from Abu Hurairah," and he related it. Then Hakim said, "This is a hadith sahih according to the criterion of Muslim. Muslim relied on Abdullah bin Saaib bin Abu Saaib Ansari, and I know of no flaw in it." Dhahabi agreed with him.Then Hakim narrated it again (4:259) in abbreviated form, without mentioning Friday or Ramadan, via the route of Amr bin Awn Wasiti, "Ishaq bin Yusuf narrated to us, Awwam bin Hawshab narrated to us, from Abdullah bin Saaib, from Abu Hurairah," with the same content. Then Hakim said, "This is a hadith sahih in its chain, and the two of them (Bukhari and Muslim) did not record it." Dhahabi agreed with him on this as well.So Hakim's first chain is via the route of Yazid bin Harun, who is Ahmad's teacher in the chain at 10584, which contains the addition of the unnamed man between Abdullah bin Saaib and Abu Hurairah, yet it is free of any mention of this unnamed man. If we knew the biography of the narrator from Yazid bin Harun as found in Hakim, namely Saeed bin Masud, we could claim that there was a disagreement in this chain regarding Yazid, between the two narrators from him, namely Imam Ahmad and Saeed bin Masud. Even though we cannot decisively determine that the narration of that Saeed bin Masud should be preferred over the narration of Ahmad, it may lead us to suspect that Yazid bin Harun was uncertain about the chain or forgot it, and so narrated it both ways, once with the addition of the unnamed man, and once without it.However, I have not found any biography or any mention whatsoever of this Saeed bin Masud in the references available to me, and I do not know who he is, so I cannot draw a comparison between his narration and the narration of Imam Ahmad. Nevertheless, the narration of Hushaym, which is here at 7129, corroborates this Saeed bin Masud in omitting the unnamed man between Abdullah bin Saaib and Abu Hurairah. Hushaym is the equal of Yazid bin Harun in memorization and precision, if not surpassing him, indeed he did surpass him according to the testimony of the great scholars.Bukhari narrated in Kabir (2/4/242) from Abdullah bin Mubarak, who said, "While time may change the memory of others, it does not change the memory of Hushaym." And in Tahdhib (11:60-61), Abdul-Rahman bin Mahdi said, "Hushaym had a better memory for hadith than Sufyan Thawri." Ibn Abu Hatim said, "My father was asked about Hushaym and Yazid bin Harun, and he said, 'Hushaym has the better memory of the two.'" There is much more of this kind, and this testimony alone suffices as proof.So when Hushaym and Yazid disagreed on this chain, whether it is connected, from Abdullah bin Saaib from Abu Hurairah directly, or disconnected by inserting an unnamed man between them, we judge that Hushaym's connected narration is to be preferred, especially since there was already disagreement regarding Yazid's own narration. Even though the narrator of the other version is of unknown status to us, Hushaym's narration supports his narration.Then Hakim's other narration came as decisive confirmation of what we have concluded in preferring Hushaym's narration, since he narrated it via the route of a reliable, trustworthy scholar of hadith, namely Ishaq bin Yusuf Azraq, who narrated it from Awwam bin Hawshab, connected, just as in Hushaym's narration. Thus the chain is established as connected, Allah willing.Regarding his statement, "So I knew that this matter was newly introduced," this is how it appears in all three manuscript sources, with the definite article on "matter." In the coming narration (10584), it reads, "So we knew that it was a newly introduced matter." In Hakim's first narration, it reads, "So I knew that this was among newly introduced matters." This sentence is not mentioned at all in his second narration.As for his statement, "As for the breaking of the pact," in manuscript H it reads, "As for the breaking of the pact," with an addition that is not sound, and it is not mentioned in manuscripts K and M, so we have removed it.