Ahmad 7578

Its isnad is sahih. Ahmad narrated it from two teachers. He first narrated it from Abu Kamil, who is Muzaffar bin Mudrik, from Ibrahim, who is Ibn Saad bin Ibrahim bin Abdul-Rahman bin Awf. Then he shifted and resumed the chain, narrating it from Yaqub, who is Ibn Ibrahim bin Saad, from his father. Ibrahim bin Saad narrated it from Ibn Shihab Zuhri.The three copies of the Musnad differ on this chain. All of them read "Abu Kamil, Hammad told us, Ibrahim told us," but this is a mistake in adding Hammad, who is Ibn Salama, between Abu Kamil and Ibrahim. Abu Kamil narrates from Ibrahim bin Saad directly. A note was written in the margin of copy M stating that in one copy there is no "Hammad told us," and this is correct.Then, in copy H, every instance of Yaqub's statement "my father told us" was dropped, while it is preserved in copy M, which is correct, because Yaqub bin Ibrahim never had the chance to hear directly from Zuhri, but always narrates from him through an intermediary. The chain has been confirmed in its correct form, as we have established it here, in the manuscript of Jami al-Masanid wal-Sunan by Hafiz Ibn Kathir, 7/278, quoting from this very place in the Musnad.Ubaydullah, Zuhri's teacher, is Ubaydullah bin Abdullah bin Utba bin Masud. His reliability was already established at 2489. We add here that Ibn Saad included his biography at 5/185-186, as did Ibn Abu Hatim at 2/2/319-320, and it is reported from Abu Zura that he said of him, "The Madinan, trustworthy, dependable, an imam."The hadith was narrated by Nasai, 1/258, through the route of Maen, who is Ibn Isa, from Ibrahim bin Saad, from Zuhri, from Abu Hurairah. It will come in the Musnad at 8072, through the route of Maamar from Zuhri, from Ubaydullah bin Abdullah bin Utba, from Abu Hurairah.Zuhri also narrated it from Abu Ubayd, freedman of Ibn Azhar, from Abu Hurairah. It will come in the Musnad (8072), through the route of Maamar from Zuhri, from Abu Ubayd. Likewise, Bukhari narrated it, 13/189-190, through the route of Maamar from Zuhri. It will also come at 10279, through the route of Muhammad bin Abu Hafsa from Zuhri, from Abu Ubayd.Darimi also narrated it, 2/313, and Bukhari, 10/109-110, both from Abu Yaman, Hakam bin Nafi, from Shuayb, from Zuhri, from Abu Ubayd. But Bukhari narrated alongside it another hadith preceding it with the same isnad. Nasai also narrated it, 1/228, through the route of Zubaydi from Zuhri, from Abu Ubayd.Hafiz mentioned in Fath al-Bari, 13/189, regarding Maamar's narration from Zuhri, from Abu Ubayd, that he was followed in it, from Zuhri, by Shuayb, Ibn Abu Hafsa, and Yunus bin Yazid. He said, "Nasai and Ismaili reported it through the route of Ibrahim bin Saad from Zuhri, saying, from Ubaydullah bin Abdullah bin Utba, from Abu Hurairah. But Nasai said that the first version is correct." Hafiz also said, at 10/109, "This is how these narrators agreed regarding Zuhri's narration from Abu Ubayd, while Ibrahim bin Saad from Zuhri differed from them, saying, from Ubaydullah bin Abdullah, from Abu Hurairah. Nasai reported it and said, 'Zubaydi's narration is more likely to be correct, and Ibrahim bin Saad is trustworthy,'" meaning that he nevertheless erred in this instance.This is how Hafiz found fault with Ibrahim bin Saad's narration, this one at 7568, without evidence or proof, since Zuhri's narration of the hadith from Abu Ubayd could only negate his narrating it from Ubaydullah bin Abdullah, and Zuhri having two teachers who both narrated it to him from Abu Hurairah, if a sound proof were established for this negation and for Ibrahim bin Saad's error. But if the proof is merely that a greater number of narrators reported that other version, then no, that is not sufficient. Rather, their narration would support his narration in establishing the hadith from Abu Hurairah, as is evident.Then Hafiz quoted from Nasai, in both places in Fath al-Bari, that he considered the narration from Abu Ubayd, freedman of Abdul-Rahman, to be the correct one, or more likely to be correct. But I did not find this statement, or anything resembling it, in Sunan Nasai at this location, in four copies I have, the old India edition, the first Egypt edition, and two manuscripts. Perhaps it appears in other copies, or in another book by Nasai.Furthermore, the hadith, in its meaning, was narrated by two other successors from Abu Hurairah. Maamar narrated it from Hammam bin Munabbih, in his well-known scroll, from Abu Hurairah, with similar wording. It will come in the Musnad at 8174, from Abdul-Razzaq, from Maamar. Muslim also narrated it, 2/308, through this route. Hafiz pointed to this narration in Fath al-Bari, 13/189, regarding Bukhari's narration through the route of Hisham bin Yusuf from Maamar, from Zuhri, from Abu Ubayd. He said, "This is how Hisham bin Yusuf narrated it from Maamar. Abdul-Razzaq said, from Maamar, from Hammam bin Munabbih, from Abu Hurairah, as reported by Muslim. Both routes are preserved for Maamar." This is correct. But I do not know why the two routes could not likewise both be preserved for Zuhri, from Ubaydullah bin Abdullah and from Abu Ubayd, freedman of Ibn Azhar!Abu Yunus, Salim bin Jubayr, freedman of Abu Hurairah, also narrated it from Abu Hurairah, similar to Hammam bin Munabbih's narration. It will come in the Musnad at 8592, through the narration of Ibn Lahia from Abu Yunus.Regarding his statement, "either doing good... or doing wrong," in Bukhari's narration and others it appears as muhsinan, musian (in the accusative), and Hafiz said, "This is how they all have it, in the accusative in both, and this is on the assumption of an implied governing verb, such as 'yakun' (he would be)." In Ahmad's narration from Abdul-Razzaq, it occurs in the nominative in both, and likewise in the aforementioned narration of Ibrahim bin Saad, and this is clear.Regarding his statement, "yastatib," Hafiz said, "That is, he seeks Allah's pleasure through repentance and seeking forgiveness. Istitab means seeking i'tab (the removal of blame), the hamza being for removal, that is, he seeks the removal of blame. Aatabahu means he blamed him, and a'tabahu means he removed his blame." Kirmani said, "This is one of those forms that came against the analogical rule, since the istifal pattern is only formed from the triliteral root, not from an augmented one."