Ahmad 7725

Its chain of transmission is sahih. Israil is Ibn Yunus bin Abu Ishaq Subayi, and he is trustworthy and highly reliable, his reliability having already been established at 2704 and 6400. Ahmad said, He was a trustworthy elder, and he began to express amazement at his memory. He is among the most reliable of those who narrated from his grandfather Abu Ishaq, to the extent that his father Yunus used to give him precedence over himself regarding the hadith of Abu Ishaq, and he said to someone who asked him about it, Write it down from Israil, for my father dictated it to him. Hakim narrated in Mustadrak 1:12 a hadith through Israil from Amash, and said, The most that can be said about it is that it is not found among the companions of Amash, and Israil bin Yunus Subayi is their elder and master, and he shared many of his teachers with Amash, so it should not be considered objectionable that he alone narrated this hadith from him. He has a biography in Kabir 2/1/56-57, and Saghir 183, and Ibn Saad 6:260, and Ibn Abu Hatim 1/1/330-331, and Tadhkirat Huffaz 1:199-200.A statement appears at the end of his biography in Tahdhib 1:263 that gives the impression of severe criticism, but it is a mistake made either by the one who narrated it, or by the one who narrated it from someone else who did. In it, it says, Uthman bin Abu Shayba said, on the authority of Abdul-Rahman bin Mahdi, Israil is a thief who steals hadith! God forbid that Israil should be branded with this, and Abdul-Rahman bin Mahdi is too dignified and too fearful of Allah to level such a charge at him. The correct, established narration is what Ibn Abu Hatim reported in his biography of him. He said, Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Hanbal informed us, in what he wrote to me, Abu Bakr bin Abu Shayba told us, I heard Abdul-Rahman bin Mahdi say, Israil was a thief when it came to hadith, meaning that he seized knowledge eagerly. This is the correct wording and its correct interpretation, from Abu Bakr bin Abu Shayba, and I do not think that his brother Uthman bin Abu Shayba explained it in the way that appears in Tahdhib. What seems more likely to me is that this interpretation came from whoever transmitted it from him.Moreover, how could Ibn Mahdi say something with this objectionable meaning about him, when he himself narrates from him? Rather, he says, Israil, in matters concerning Abu Ishaq, is more reliable than Shuba and Thawri. Indeed, Dhahabi gave him a biography in Mizan 1:97-98, and mentioned what some had said about Israil, but he did not mention this statement nor its objectionable interpretation. Instead he said, Israil was relied upon by Bukhari and Muslim in the foundational sources, and in reliability he is like a pillar, so no attention should be paid to those who weakened him.Simak is Ibn Harb bin Aws Dhuhali Bakri, his reliability having already been established at 116, and we add that he has a biography in Kabir 2/2/174, and Ibn Abu Hatim 1/2/279-280, and Rijal Sahihayn 204, and Muslim included a narration from him in his Sahih.Abu Rabi Madani was a trustworthy successor. Bukhari gave him a biography in Kuna, numbers 263 and 267, and said, He heard from Abu Hurairah, and he mentioned no criticism of him. Ibn Abu Hatim also gave him a biography, 2/4/370, narrating from his father, who said, He is sound in hadith. Ibn Hibban listed him among the trustworthy. In Tahdhib 12:94 he was marked with the symbol for Abu Dawud, but this is a printing error, the correct symbol being for Tirmidhi (t), as it appears in Taqrib and Khulasa, and as is in fact the case, since Tirmidhi narrated from him while Abu Dawud did not.The hadith appears in Jami al-Masanid 7:429. Tayalisi narrated it at 2396 from Abu Awana, from Simak bin Harb, in similar wording. Likewise Tirmidhi narrated it at 2:59 from Qutayba, from Abu Awana. Bukhari narrated it in Tarikh al-Kabir, indicating it in his usual manner, from Ahmad bin Yunus, from Zuhayr, from Simak. Its meaning has already appeared several times through the narration of Hasan from Abu Hurairah, the last instance being at 6258, and we have given a thorough account of its various paths at 7138, where we referred to this instance as well.In the text it occurs, The Prophet charged me and enjoined me regarding three things, but the addition of the word "enjoined me" sits awkwardly in this place, and it is an error made by either a copyist or a printer. It is not mentioned in K, nor in Jami al-Masanid, and so we have removed it.