Ahmad 7222

Its chain of transmission is sahih, and it is in the Muwatta, page 979. The transmitters from Malik disagree about whether it is from Saeed Maqburi from Abu Hurairah, or from Saeed Maqburi from his father from Abu Hurairah. The transmitters from Saeed also disagree on this point. Ibn Abdul-Barr mentioned it in Taqassi, number 125, with the addition "from his father," without indicating the disagreement over it. I do not know how this came about, for most transmitters of the Muwatta did not mention this addition, as will be shown. It seems very unlikely to me that this would be hidden from Ibn Abdul-Barr, and it would have been closer to the truth, and more justified, had he mentioned the other version and relied on it alone.Muslim narrated it, 1:280, from Yahya bin Yahya from Malik, with this addition. It is established in every copy of Muslim that I have seen, both manuscript and printed. This is the version on which Nawawi based his commentary, and many scholars have mentioned it. However, it can be understood from the words of the Hafiz in Fath, as we will mention, that what he had in Sahih Muslim, from the narration of Malik, was without this addition. Qadi Iyad said in Mashariq Anwar, 2:348, after pointing to Muslim's narration with this addition, "This is how it came in Muslim in the hadith of Layth, Malik, and Ibn Jurayj [this is what appears in Mashariq, but it may be a copyist's error, and the correct reading is Ibn Abu Dhib, as in Sahih Muslim]. Daraqutni said, 'The mention of his father in this hadith is a mistake, for most companions of the Muwatta and others did not state it.'" Jayyani said, "This is how it appears here among the transmitters of Muslim, but the correct version from him omits his father, as Dimashqi mentioned this from Muslim." Daraqutni said, "Zahrani and Farwi narrated it from Malik, and both affirmed 'from his father.'" The Qadi (that is, Iyad) said, "The copy of Ibn Assal did not mention his narration from Ibn Hudha, 'from his father.'"Abu Dawud narrated it, 1724, 2:72-73 of Awn al-Mabud, with two chains together, from Qanabi and Nufayli from Malik from Saeed from Abu Hurairah, and from Hasan bin Ali, from Bishr bin Umar, from Malik, from Saeed, from his father, from Abu Hurairah, and he distinguished clearly between the two chains. Then Abu Dawud said, "Qanabi and Nufayli did not mention 'from his father.' Ibn Wahb and Uthman bin Umar narrated it from Malik as Qanabi said." Tirmidhi narrated it, 2:207, with one of Abu Dawud's two chains, narrating it from Hasan bin Ali from Bishr bin Umar from Malik, with the addition "from his father," without indicating the disagreement over it as Abu Dawud did.Nawawi said in his commentary on Muslim, 9:107-109, "This is how this hadith came in the copies from our region [meaning of Sahih Muslim], 'from Saeed from his father.'" Then he quoted the words of Qadi Iyad in his commentary on Muslim, similar to what he said in Mashariq. Then he pointed to the narrations of Abu Dawud and Tirmidhi, then said, "So there arose a clear disagreement among the memorizers regarding the mention of his father. Perhaps he heard it from his father from Abu Hurairah, and then heard it from Abu Hurairah himself, so he narrated it sometimes one way and sometimes the other. His hearing from Abu Hurairah is sahih and well known."As for Bukhari, he narrated it, 2:468, through the path of Ibn Abu Dhib from Saeed from his father, then said, "Yahya bin Abu Kathir, Suhayl, and Malik followed him, from Maqburi from Abu Hurairah." The Hafiz understood from this that the three, namely Yahya, Suhayl, and Malik, corroborated Ibn Abu Dhib in his narration, but they did not say "from his father." He said, "Meaning, they did not say 'from his father.'" On this basis, it would be a corroboration in the wording, not in the chain of transmission. Moreover, there is disagreement regarding both Suhayl and Malik on this matter. It seems the version that the author was certain of is more likely, in their view, than these versions.Then the Hafiz explained where the connected version of Yahya bin Abu Kathir's narration is found, which Bukhari referenced with this suspended corroboration, saying, "As for Yahya's narration, Ahmad extracted it from Hasan bin Musa from Shayban Nahwi from him [meaning from Yahya]. I did not find any disagreement regarding it from him, except that his wording is, 'that she travel a day,' and the word 'a day' is interpreted to mean 'its night,' so it would agree with the narration of Ibn Abu Dhib." This is a remarkably strange shift in perspective from the Hafiz, indeed, and forced, and what follows is even more forced.First, he interpreted the corroboration as a corroboration in the wording, contrary to what is known and customary for Bukhari, that corroboration means corroboration in the chain of transmission, especially since the disagreement here is specifically a disagreement in the chain of transmission, and Bukhari made this explicit by saying at the end of his statement, "from Maqburi from Abu Hurairah." So interpreting his statement as a corroboration in the wording is not tenable. Then, when the Hafiz saw that there was a disagreement in the wording of the hadith between the narration of Yahya and the narration of Ibn Abu Dhib, how quickly he interpreted it, in order to make the corroboration hold as he understood it.Second, perhaps the Hafiz looked at the chain of Yahya's narration in Musnad with a quick glance, and said what he said, without carefully considering the chain, especially since he did not attribute Yahya's narration to anyone other than Ahmad, and then explicitly stated that he found no disagreement regarding Yahya on this, because he did not find it anywhere other than Musnad.This narration of Yahya bin Abu Kathir will come in Musnad, 9422, as follows, "Hasan narrated to us, saying, Shayban narrated to us, from Yahya, from Saeed, that his father informed him, that he heard Abu Hurairah say, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, 'It is not permissible for a woman to travel a day or more unless she has with her a mahram.'" In this narration there is an explicit statement, not open to reinterpretation, that Saeed Maqburi informed Yahya bin Abu Kathir that his father heard Abu Hurairah. So it is an explicit and complete corroboration of Ibn Abu Dhib's narration in the chain of transmission, in that both of them narrate the hadith from Saeed from his father.So Bukhari's statement, as is his custom in making precise but brief references, is like this, "Yahya bin Abu Kathir followed him." This completes the discussion of the corroboration. Then he began a new statement, pointing with it to the disagreement, saying, "and Suhayl and Malik, from Maqburi, from Abu Hurairah." So he mentioned the two versions, the narration of Ibn Abu Dhib and Ibn Abu Kathir, which contains the addition "from his father," and the narration of Suhayl and Malik, in which they did not mention this addition. This is clear and evident, praise be to Allah for this success.The narration of Malik, which Bukhari pointed to, is the one here in Musnad. As for the narration of Suhayl, which Bukhari also pointed to, Abu Dawud narrated it [1725, 2:73 of Awn al-Mabud], and Hakim in Mustadrak 1:4420, both through the path of Jareer bin Abdul-Hameed from Suhayl from Saeed from Abu Hurairah, with the wording, "A woman should not travel the distance of a barid unless she has with her a mahram." The wording is Hakim's, and he said, "This is a sahih hadith according to the criterion of Muslim, though the two of them (Bukhari and Muslim) did not extract it with this wording."Suhayl also narrated it from his father Abu Salih from Abu Hurairah, but with the wording "three days." This will come at 8545, through the narration of Hammad bin Salama from Suhayl, and likewise Muslim narrated it, 1:380, through the narration of Bishr bin Mufaddal from Suhayl from his father. Abu Salih, just as he heard it from Abu Hurairah, also heard it from Abu Saeed. Muslim narrated it, 1:380, and Abu Dawud [1726, 2:73-74 of Awn al-Mabud], through the narration of Abu Muawiya and Waki, both from Amash from Abu Salih. Some scholars, including Ibn Abdul-Barr, considered this to be confusion on the part of Suhayl in both the chain of transmission and the wording, as the Hafiz mentioned in Fath, 2:469. Then he said, "It is possible that both hadiths were with Suhayl [meaning, from the hadith of Abu Hurairah and from the hadith of Abu Saeed], and therefore Ibn Hibban graded both paths from him as sahih, but the preserved version is from Abu Salih from Abu Saeed."The truth in all of this, which the evidence indicates, and which sound principles support, and tracing its paths confirms, and this is an available avenue, is that the narration of Malik is only from Saeed from Abu Hurairah. Saeed heard it from Abu Hurairah, and also heard it from his father from Abu Hurairah, so he narrated it both ways. Suhayl heard it from Saeed from Abu Hurairah, and heard it from his father Abu Salih from Abu Hurairah, and heard it from his father also from Abu Saeed Khudri.The hadith will come in Musnad, from the hadith of Abu Hurairah, many times, besides the ones we have pointed to here. It will come at 8470, 10406, through the path of Layth, and at 7408, 9628, 9739, 10583, through the path of Ibn Abu Dhib, both of these from Saeed from his father from Abu Hurairah.Hakim narrated it in Mustadrak, 1:442, through another path from Imam Ahmad, which I did not find in Musnad. He narrated it from Qatiyi from Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Hanbal from his father from Abu Hisham Makhzumi from Wahib from Muhammad bin Ajlan from Saeed from his father from Abu Hurairah, and he graded it sahih according to the criterion of Muslim, and Dhahabi agreed with him.See what has already passed in the Musnad of Abdullah bin Umar, 4615, 4696, 6289, 6290, and in the Musnad of Abdullah bin Amr bin As, 6712.