Ahmad 7599

Its chain of transmission is sahih. Tirmidhi related it (4:5) from Ibn Abu Umar, from Sufyan, that is Thawri, with this same chain, and said, "This is a hasan hadith." Hakim related it (4:263-264) through the route of Abu Asim, from Ibn Ajlan, with the same account, though slightly longer than what is here. He said, "This is a hadith with a sahih chain, and the two of them [Bukhari and Muslim] did not record it." Dhahabi agreed with him.Tirmidhi then related it, following that, through the route of Yazid bin Harun, from Ibn Abu Dhib, from Saeed bin Abu Saeed Maqburi, from his father, from Abu Hurairah, at greater length, with the addition of "from his father" in the chain. He said, "This is a sahih hadith, and this is more sahih than the hadith of Ibn Ajlan. Ibn Abu Dhib has better memory for the hadith of Saeed Maqburi and is more reliable than Ibn Ajlan." He said, "I heard Abu Bakr Attar Basri relate from Ali bin Madini, from Yahya bin Saeed, who said, Muhammad bin Ajlan said, 'The hadiths of Saeed Maqburi, some of them Saeed related from Abu Hurairah, and some of them Saeed related from a man from Abu Hurairah, so they became mixed up for me, and I made them all "from Saeed from Abu Hurairah."'"This narration of Ibn Abu Dhib will come later in the Musnad at 9526, from Yahya Qattan and from Hajjaj bin Muhammad, both of them from Ibn Abu Dhib. Bukhari likewise related it (10:501) from Adam bin Abu Iyas, and Hakim (4:264) through the route of Adam. Bukhari also related it (10:505) from Asim bin Ali. Abu Dawud related it (5028) through the route of Yazid bin Harun, all of them from Ibn Abu Dhib.The Hafiz [Ibn Hajar] said at the first location, "This is how Adam bin Iyas related it, from Ibn Abu Dhib, and Asim bin Ali followed him in agreement, as will come after a section, as did Hajjaj bin Muhammad with Nasai [and likewise in the Musnad at 9526], and Abu Dawud Tayalisi, and Yazid bin Harun with Tirmidhi [and likewise with Abu Dawud], and Ibn Abu Fudayk with Ismaili, and Abu Amir Aqadi with Hakim [4:264, following the narration we referred to], all of them from Ibn Abu Dhib. Qasim bin Yazid differed from them with Nasai, not saying in it 'from his father.' Abu Naeem likewise mentioned it through the route of Tayalisi, and Nasai, Ibn Khuzayma, Ibn Hibban, and Hakim also recorded it this way, from the narration of Muhammad bin Ajlan from Saeed Maqburi, from Abu Hurairah, without saying 'from his father.'"Tirmidhi gave preference to the narration of those who said "from his father," and this is the position relied upon.As for the statement that Tirmidhi related with a chain through Qattan, Bukhari also related it in Al-Kabir (196/1/1-197), in the biography of Muhammad bin Ajlan, where it states, "Yahya Qattan said, 'I do not know except that I heard Ibn Ajlan say...'" This phrasing indicates some degree of doubt on the part of Qattan.Ibn Hibban said in Al-Thiqat (p. 996), in his biography, "He has a written collection from Saeed Maqburi, some of it from his father from Abu Hurairah, and some of it from Abu Hurairah himself. Yahya Qattan said, 'I heard Muhammad bin Ajlan say, "Saeed Maqburi used to relate from his father from Abu Hurairah, and from Abu Hurairah, so it became mixed up for me, and I made all of it from Abu Hurairah."'"Abu Hatim [that is, Ibn Hibban himself] said, "Saeed Maqburi did hear from Abu Hurairah, and he also heard from his father from Abu Hurairah. When his written collection became mixed up for Ibn Ajlan, he did not distinguish between the two, it became conflated for him, and he made all of it 'from Abu Hurairah.' This is not something a person should be blamed for, because the written collection in itself was entirely sahih. So whatever Ibn Ajlan said as 'from Saeed from his father from Abu Hurairah,' that is something he carried from before the confusion of his written collection occurred to him. And whatever he said as 'from Saeed from Abu Hurairah,' some of it is connected and sahih, and some of it is disconnected, because he dropped out his father from it. So one must not rely on it, out of caution, except for what the precise and reliable narrators related from him as 'from Saeed from his father from Abu Hurairah.' His case would only be recognized as problematic and weakened if he had said 'Saeed from Abu Hurairah' in every instance, for if he had said that, he would have been lying in some cases, because not all of it was heard by Saeed from Abu Hurairah. Had he said that, relying on it would collapse, according to what we have described."In what Ibn Hibban said here, in my view, there is room for reconsideration. For even though Ibn Ajlan became confused about the distinction between what Saeed related to him from Abu Hurairah and what Saeed related to him from his father from Abu Hurairah, and then made all of it "from Abu Hurairah," there is nothing in this that negates the soundness of both types together. As for what was "from Saeed from Abu Hurairah," that is clear. As for the other type, the most that can be said of it is that he made it a suppressed narration, dropping from the chain a narrator whose inclusion he was not certain of. It is known, from his own words, that the one dropped was Abu Saeed Maqburi, and there is no fault in this against Ibn Ajlan, since he exercised caution and care, affirming what he was certain of and dropping what his memory had failed him on.The scenario that Ibn Hibban imagined, that his case would be recognized as problematic if he had said in every instance "Saeed from Abu Hurairah," would not actually be grounds for weakening or accusing him of falsehood, unless Ibn Ajlan explicitly stated, in every hadith from Saeed, that he heard it directly from Abu Hurairah, and that never happened. Rather, he exercised caution and said "Saeed from Abu Hurairah." So all of these narrations, in our view, should be taken as connected, even in cases where they outwardly appear disconnected, except where it is established through another route that Saeed did not hear it from Abu Hurairah directly, since we are certain that he heard it from his father from Abu Hurairah.