Ahmad 7240

Its isnad is sahih. Bukhari related it, 3:361–362, from Humaydi, from Walid, with this same isnad. Muslim likewise related it, 1:371, from Zuhayr bin Harb, from Walid.In Bukhari's narration from Humaydi, "So Ali turned toward Banu Hashim and Banu Abdul-Muttalib, or Banu Muttalib," expressed with this doubt. Bukhari said, after relating the hadith, "Salama, from Aqeel, and Yahya bin Dahhak, from Uzai, said, 'Ibn Shihab informed me,' and both of them said, 'Banu Hashim and Banu Muttalib.'" Abu Abdullah, meaning Bukhari himself, said, "Banu Muttalib is more likely to be correct."Thus Bukhari assumed that the doubt arose only from Walid bin Muslim, from Uzai, and that is why he pointed to the narration of Salama from Aqeel from Zuhri, and to the narration of Yahya bin Dahhak from Uzai from Zuhri.Al-Hafiz wavered and was inconsistent in his discussion. At times he follows Bukhari in indicating that the error came from Walid bin Muslim, and at other times he suggests that it came from Bukhari himself. He first mentioned that the narration of Salama from Aqeel from Zuhri was related with a connected isnad by Ibn Khuzayma in his Sahih. He then mentioned that the narration of Yahya bin Dahhak from Uzai was related with a connected isnad by Abu Awana in his Sahih and by Khatib in al-Mudraj.Then he said, "Muhammad bin Musab, from Uzai, followed him," meaning followed Ibn Dahhak, "in stating definitively, 'Banu Hashim and Banu Muttalib,' " which Ahmad and Abu Awana also related. This is an indication from him that the error came from Walid bin Muslim.But before that, when mentioning the doubt in Bukhari's narration, he said, "This is how it occurred in his version, with the doubt." And in Bayhaqi's version, by another route from Walid, it occurs as "and Banu Muttalib," without any doubt. So the error was from him, meaning from Bukhari.Al-Hafiz has certainly gone too far afield in his search! For the narration of Ahmad here from Walid bin Muslim, and the narration of Muslim from Zuhayr bin Harb from Walid, both contain "and Banu Muttalib," without this doubt. Likewise it appears in the narration of Walid bin Mazid Bayruti from Uzai, in Bayhaqi's Sunan al-Kubra, 5:160, which is the very narration al-Hafiz pointed to earlier. So this doubt that occurred in Bukhari's narration is either from Bukhari himself or from his teacher Humaydi, but it certainly did not come from Walid bin Muslim.As for his statement, "at the khayf of Banu Kinana," it is with a fatha on the khaa. Ibn Athir said, "The khayf is what rises above the path of a flash flood and descends from the thickness of a mountain, and the masjid of Mina is called Masjid al-Khayf because it is at the base of its mountain."As for his statement, "where they made a pact," he means they made a mutual oath, from the word taqasum, which means an oath and a vow.As for his statement, "meaning by that al-Muhassab," and so on, al-Hafiz said, "It occurs to me that everything after his statement 'meaning al-Muhassab' to the end of the hadith is from the words of Zuhri, inserted into the report. Shuayb related it, as in this chapter, and Ibrahim bin Saad, as will come in the Sira, and Yunus, as will come in Tawhid, all of them from Ibn Shihab, restricting themselves to the part attributed to the Prophet up to his statement 'upon disbelief,' and that is why Muslim did not mention any of that."Thus al-Hafiz said, "As for the possibility of insertion, it may well be so." But the fact that some narrators restrict themselves to part of the hadith without the rest does not by itself indicate insertion. As for the claim that Muslim did not mention any of that, this is a lapse on the part of al-Hafiz, for the narration of Muslim from Zuhayr bin Harb from Walid bin Muslim is complete, just like the narration in the Musnad here and the narration of Bukhari in his Sahih. Nothing of what al-Hafiz claimed to be an insertion was omitted from it.