Ahmad 7689

Its chain of transmission is sahih. Ibn Hibban related it in his Sahih 2:424, from the manuscript of al-Ihsan, via Ibrahim bin Hajjaj Sami, from Hammad bin Salama, from Suhayl bin Abu Salih, with this chain, as a raised hadith, with the wording, "Whoever washes a deceased person should perform ghusl, and whoever carries him should perform wudu." Bukhari referred to this narration of Hammad bin Salama in al-Kabir 397/1/1.Tirmidhi related it 2:132, from Muhammad bin Abdul-Malik bin Abu Shawarib, from Abdul-Aziz bin Mukhtar, from Suhayl, with this chain, with the wording, "Whoever washes him, ghusl, and whoever carries him, wudu." Bayhaqi related it in Sunan al-Kubra 1:300–301, via Muhammad bin Abdul-Malik bin Abu Shawarib, like the narration of Tirmidhi. Ibn Majah 1463 related its first half from Muhammad bin Abdul-Malik bin Abu Shawarib, with a chain like that of Tirmidhi, with the wording, "Whoever washes a deceased person should perform ghusl."Bayhaqi said, after relating it like the narration of Tirmidhi, "Ibn Jurayj and Hammad bin Salama likewise related it, from Suhayl bin Abu Salih, from his father, from Abu Hurairah." So these three trustworthy narrators, Ibn Jurayj here in the Musnad, Hammad bin Salama with Ibn Hibban, and Abdul-Aziz bin Mukhtar with Tirmidhi, Bayhaqi, and Ibn Majah, related it from Suhayl bin Abu Salih, from his father, from Abu Hurairah, as a raised hadith. The chain of the Musnad here is sahih according to the standard of the two Shaykhs, and the other chains are sahih according to the standard of Muslim.Despite this, Tirmidhi says, following his narration, "The hadith of Abu Hurairah is a hasan hadith, and it has been related from Abu Hurairah as a stopped report," as though he means to fault the raised version by means of the stopped one. But this is not a valid fault, for raising the report is an addition from a trustworthy narrator, indeed from several trustworthy narrators, and it is therefore accepted without hesitation.Then some of the imams faulted it with another fault, namely the addition of a man in the chain, between Abu Salih and Abu Hurairah. Abu Dawud related it, 3162, from Hamid bin Yahya, from Sufyan, that is, Ibn Uyayna, from Suhayl bin Abu Salih, from his father, from Ishaq the freedman of Zaida, from Abu Hurairah, as a raised hadith, in similar wording. Bukhari related it in al-Kabir 396/1/1–397 in summary form as is his custom, from Imran bin Maysara, from Ibn Ulaya, from Suhayl, from his father, from Ishaq the freedman of Zaida, from Abu Hurairah. Then he said, "Ibn Uyayna corroborated him, from Suhayl."This too is not a valid fault, for perhaps Abu Salih heard it both from Abu Hurairah directly, and from Ishaq the freedman of Zaida, from Abu Hurairah. Either way, the hadith is sahih. For Ishaq the freedman of Zaida is Ishaq Abu Abdullah, whose reliability has already been established and explained at 7673. So this addition in the chain does no harm at all, indeed it may well add to its soundness and authentication.Moreover, Suhayl was not alone in relating it from his father, for Qaqa bin Hakeem corroborated him in it. Bayhaqi also related it, 1:300, via Muhammad bin Jafar bin Abu Kathir, from Muhammad bin Ajlan, from Qaqa bin Hakeem, from Abu Salih, from Abu Hurairah, with it, as a raised hadith. Bukhari also referred to this narration, 397/1/1. This chain is sahih according to the standard of Muslim.Then the hadith has another sahih chain, free of any fault. Ibn Hazm related it in al-Muhalla, 1:250 and 2:23, via Hajjaj bin Minhal, from Hammad bin Salama, from Muhammad bin Amr, from Abu Salama bin Abdul-Rahman bin Awf, from Abu Hurairah, as a raised hadith. Bukhari also mentioned this chain by way of reference, 397/1/1, saying, "Musa related to us, from Hammad, from Muhammad bin Amr, from Abu Salama, from Abu Hurairah, from the Prophet ﷺ, the like of it."This is a chain like the sun, there is no doubt as to its soundness. Yet despite this, the imam Bukhari followed it with the statement, "It is not sahih!" Why? He said, "Awaysi related to me, from Darawardi, from Muhammad, from Abu Salama, from Abu Hurairah, as his own statement," meaning that Darawardi related it as a stopped report, from the saying of Abu Hurairah, not raised, thereby differing from Hammad bin Salama, who related it as a raised hadith.This is the same kind of faulting that Tirmidhi followed him in, as is his custom of following his teacher Bukhari. We have already explained above that a raised report is not faulted by means of a stopped one, when the narrator who raised it is trustworthy.The hadith has other chains as well, containing weakness, some of which will come later at 7757, 7758, 9599, 9862, 10112, and others in Sunan al-Kubra, in a lengthy discussion there, 1:299–307, and in al-Kabir of Bukhari, 396/1/1–397. We saw no need to prolong the discussion by mentioning them at this point.See also what has already come in the Musnad of Ali bin Abu Talib, 759, 807, 1077, 1093. See also, regarding the obligation of wudu from carrying the deceased, and ghusl from washing him, al-Muhalla of Ibn Hazm, 1:250–251, 2:21–25. See also Talkhis Habir, pages 50, 138.