Ahmad 7525

Its isnad is sahih. Ibn Majah 2384 also related it through the route of Abu Usama, from Awf, with this same isnad, similarly.Busiri said in his Zawaid, "This hadith is found in the Sahihayn on the authority of someone other than Abu Hurairah, and the isnad of Abu Hurairah has narrators who are trustworthy, except that it is disconnected. Ahmad bin Hanbal said, 'Khilas bin Amr Hajari never heard anything from Abu Hurairah.'"This statement attributed to Ahmad bin Hanbal is mentioned in al-Tahzib on the authority of Abu Dawud, who said he heard it from Ahmad. I do not know how this could be, for Khilas bin Amr is an early figure who met Ali, even though there is disagreement about his narration from him. Some said that his narration from him was taken from a written document, meaning that he did not hear it directly from him. I do not think this is correct either, for Aqeeli and Jurjani said, "He was on the standard of Ali." It has been established that there was an acknowledged meeting between them along with them being contemporaries.Ibn Hajar said in al-Tahzib, "It has been established that he said, 'I asked Ammar bin Yasir...' Muhammad bin Nasr mentioned this in the book of Witr." This is sahih, for Ibn Saad also related it in his biographical entry, 7/1/108-109, with a sahih isnad, from Khilas bin Amr, that he asked Ammar bin Yasir... Ammar was killed on the day of Siffin, during the lifetime of Ali.I am inclined to think that the source of these statements is a remark made by Ibn Saad in his biographical entry, where he said, "It is related from Ali and Ammar bin Yasir. He was an early figure who narrated much hadith, and he had a written document from which he used to narrate." I think that they understood from this remark that he used to narrate from a document he had not heard directly, but who is it that wrote this document? Did Ali write it? I do not think so. Rather, it appears that Khilas was also among those who wrote down the hadith they had heard, and so he used to narrate from his own book. This is an additional measure of verification and confirmation, and perhaps he wrote down what he heard from someone other than Ali.Ibn Hajar quoted in al-Tahzib, from Tarikh Bukhari, a remark concerning him, but understood it in a way other than its actual meaning, writing it down in a manner that gives the impression that Bukhari meant that Khilas did not hear from Abu Hurairah. Ibn Hajar said, "Bukhari said in his Tarikh, 'It is related from Abu Hurairah and from Ali, a written document.'"But the actual wording of Bukhari's statement in al-Kabir, 208/1/2, is as follows, "It is related from Abu Hurairah, and from Ali, a written document, and from Abu Rafi." Bukhari is precise in his wording and his allusions. His mentioning Abu Hurairah first indicates that his narrations from him are sahih, then he mentioned that his narration from Ali is a written document, then he mentioned his narration from Abu Rafi. Had Bukhari meant what Ibn Hajar understood, he would have placed the name of Ali before the name of Abu Hurairah, as is clear.Abul-Fadl Maqdisi was more precise than Ibn Hajar in this regard, for he mentioned, in the biographical entry of Khilas in the book al-Jamu bayna Rijal al-Sahihayn, page 128, that he heard from Abu Hurairah, according to Bukhari.Ibn Hajar wanted to be cautious, as was his habit, so he said in the introduction of al-Fath, page 399, after quoting the narration of Abu Dawud from Ahmad that Khilas did not hear from Abu Hurairah, he said, "His narration from him is found in Bukhari, who related two hadiths from him through him, pairing him in both with Muhammad bin Sirin, and he has nothing else besides these two in Bukhari." This is an unwarranted excess of caution, without any justification for it.As for the meaning of the hadith, it has already been discussed several times, including at 2119 and 2120 in the Musnad of Ibn Abbas, and at 4810 and 5493 in the Musnad of Ibn Umar, and at 6629 and 6943 in the Musnad of Ibn Amr.