Ahmad 7688

Its chain of transmission is sahih. It is found in Jami al-Masanid wal-Sunan by Ibn Kathir, 7:275. There it reads, "Muhammad bin Maslama told us," instead of "from." Haythami mentioned it in Majma al-Zawaid 2:165-166, and said, "Ahmad narrated it, and it contains Muhammad bin Abu Salama Ansari." Dhahabi said, "Abbas narrated from him, and neither of them is known." I say (the speaker is Haythami), as for Abbas, he is Abbas bin Abdul-Rahman bin Mina, from whom Ibn Jurayj narrated, just as he narrated from him in Musnad, along with a group of others. Ibn Majah narrated from him, as did Abu Dawud in Maraseel. Ibn Hibban confirmed his reliability, and no one has declared him daif. This is what Haythami said, following in this Ibn Hajar in Lisan Mizan, as we shall mention, God willing. But what he said contains an error by a copyist or printer.As for Dhahabi's statement, it is in Mizan 3:136, where he said, "Muhammad bin Maslama Ansari, a follower of the companions, narrated from Abu Hurairah. A man named Abbas narrated from him, and neither of them is known." Ibn Hajar quoted this in Lisan Mizan 5:381, and followed it with remarks similar to what Haythami said. Dhahabi did not mention anything in the biographical entry for Abbas.First, regarding Muhammad bin Maslama Ansari, his father's name is Maslama, with the mim before the sin. In the three original manuscripts, in the Musnad here, it appears as "Salama" without the mim, and the copy of Zawaid mistakenly added it as "Muhammad bin Abu Salama." A marginal note in copy M states, "In some copies it reads Muhammad bin Maslama, and this is correct," because everyone who wrote a biographical entry for him in the books of biographies mentioned him under the letter mim among the fathers named Muhammad, and because Ibn Kathir mentioned him in Jami al-Masanid after Muhammad bin Kaab Qurazi and before Muhammad bin Muslim bin Ubaydullah, since he arranged the Musnad of Abu Hurairah alphabetically by the names of the followers who narrated from him.Second, regarding this Muhammad bin Maslama Ansari, Husayni did not write a biographical entry for him in Ikmal, and Ibn Hajar followed him in Tajil and thus neglected him. Ibn Hajar made a serious error in this, thinking him to be Muhammad bin Maslama bin Salama Harithi Khazraji Ansari. But this latter man is an early companion, earlier than Abu Hurairah, born more than 20 years before the Prophetic mission, who was present at Badr and the battles that followed, and who died in the year 46, or according to another account in the year 43, at the age of 77. He has his own separate musnad, which will appear later in this Musnad [3:493, 4:225-226]. How then could this man have narrated from Abu Hurairah? Ibn Hajar himself later realized this in Lisan Mizan, following Dhahabi, and stated explicitly that the narrator here is a follower of the companions, distinct from that early companion, but he made a slip, may Allah have mercy on him.Third, I did not find a biographical entry for Muhammad bin Maslama Ansari, the follower of the companions who narrates this hadith, except in Tarikh al-Kabir by Bukhari 1/1/239-240, and in Mizan, and in Lisan Mizan, as I mentioned before. Ibn Hibban also mentioned him in Thiqat, page 327, but Ibn Abu Hatim did not write a biographical entry for him in Jarh wa Tadil. I consider it most likely that this entry was accidentally omitted by the copyists, because Ibn Abu Hatim follows Bukhari's Kabir entry by entry, and sometimes adds to it. He did mention this man in the biographical entry for Abbas, who narrated from him, so I do not think he deliberately left him out. His biographical entry in Lisan Mizan is a summary taken from Tarikh al-Kabir, and it contains much distortion, along with an addition stating that he was mentioned among the reliable narrators by Ibn Hibban.Here is the exact text of his biographical entry according to Bukhari. He said, "Muhammad bin Maslama. Ibrahim told me" (he is Ibn Musa Razi), "he said, Hisham told us" (he is Ibn Yusuf Sanaani), "from Ibn Jurayj, Abbas told us, from Muhammad bin Maslama, from Abu Saeed and Abu Hurairah, from the Prophet ﷺ, concerning the hour of Friday, that it is after Asr." Abdul-Razzaq said, on the authority of Ibn Jurayj, "Muhammad bin Maslama Ansari, and he is not corroborated, concerning Friday."What can be understood from Ibn Hajar's statement in Lisan Mizan is that Aqeeli mentioned him among the daif narrators, and that he understood from Bukhari's statement that Muhammad bin Maslama is not corroborated regarding this hadith. But what I am able to understand precisely from Bukhari's statement is that he means to deny that Abdul-Razzaq is corroborated in attributing to Muhammad bin Maslama's narration that he was Ansari.Fourth, the disagreement concerning the hour of Friday is a long-standing, ancient disagreement. The strongest opinion regarding it, in my view, and the one I consider most sound, is that it falls after Asr, and this is the view held by Ahmad and Ishaq. Tirmidhi said in his Sunan [2:361, in our edition], "Some scholars among the companions of the Prophet ﷺ and others held the view that the hour in which prayer is hoped to be answered falls after Asr until the sun sets. This is also the view of Ahmad and Ishaq." Ahmad said, "Most of the hadiths concerning the hour in which the answering of prayer is hoped for indicate that it is after the Asr prayer, and it is also hoped for after the sun passes its zenith."Ibn Hajar has elaborated on this at length in Fath al-Bari 2:344-351, thoroughly covering the various opinions along with their supporting evidence. Near the end of his discussion he said, "Saeed bin Mansur narrated, with a sahih chain of transmission, to Abu Salama bin Abdul-Rahman, that a group of the companions gathered and discussed the hour of Friday among themselves, and then they parted without disagreeing that it is the last hour of the day of Friday." Many of the leading scholars have also favored this view, such as Ahmad and Ishaq, and among the Malikis, Tartushi. Alai reported that his teacher Ibn Zamlakani, the leading Shafii scholar of his time, used to favor this view and would report it as being the explicit position of Shafii. This is also the view chosen and favored by Hafiz bin Qayyim in Zad Mad 1:215-220, in a rich and valuable discussion well worth consulting and benefiting from. In it he cited this very hadith that we are explaining here. Praise be to Allah.Fifth, as for Abbas, who narrates it from Muhammad bin Maslama, and from whom Ibn Jurayj narrates it, who is he? Haythami's statement has already been mentioned, following Ibn Hajar in Lisan Mizan, that he is known, and that he is Abbas bin Abdul-Rahman bin Mina. But this statement is made without any real basis. There is nothing in the biographical entry for Abbas bin Abdul-Rahman bin Mina that points to anything of the sort. His entry appears in Tahdheeb 5:121, and in Kabir 4/1/5, number 14, and in Jarh wa Tadil by Ibn Abu Hatim 3/1/211, number 1159.As for the correct biographical entry for the Abbas who narrates this hadith, it is found in Ibn Abu Hatim 3/1/211, number 1158, and here is its text. "Abbas bin Abdul-Rahman bin Humayd Qurashi, from Banu Assad bin Abdul-Uzza, Makki, narrated from Muhammad bin Maslama, from Abu Hurairah and Abu Saeed. Ibn Jurayj narrated from him, and Abu Asim heard from him. I heard my father say this."The corresponding entry in Tarikh al-Kabir by Bukhari 4/1/6 is clearly disordered, containing two garbled and confused entries under numbers 19 and 20, as follows. "Abbas bin Abdullah bin Humayd, from Banu Assad bin Abdul-Uzza, Qurashi, Makki, from Amr bin Dinar, from whom Abu Asim and Ibn Jurayj heard." Then after it, "Abbas bin Maslama, from Abu Saeed." This is clearly a confusion caused by the copyists, for there is no narrator named Abbas bin Abdullah bin Humayd, nor anyone who narrates from Amr bin Dinar in this connection, nor anyone named Abbas bin Maslama. The correct reading, in my view, is that the entries at this point in Tarikh al-Kabir should follow the same form as they do in Jarh wa Tadil.This hadith belongs jointly to the musnad of Abu Saeed and the musnad of Abu Hurairah, as is evident. However, it was not mentioned in the Musnad under the musnad of Abu Saeed, so it should be noted and drawn upon at this point.See, regarding the meaning of the hour of answered prayer on Friday, what has already preceded at numbers 7151, 7466, 7480, 7481.