Ahmad 7757

Its chain is sahih, though a gap occurred in it. The hadith has already appeared as 7391 via the route of Ayub bin Musa, from Makhul, from Sulayman bin Yasar, from Abu Hurairah. We explained there that Arak bin Malik dropped out of the chain between Sulayman bin Yasar and Abu Hurairah, even though the two of them, meaning Sulayman bin Yasar and Arak bin Malik, belong to the same generation, and both heard from Abu Hurairah.As for this chain, the narration in it comes from Makhul, directly from Arak. Makhul did hear from Arak, but he did not hear this particular hadith from him. Rather, he heard it from Sulayman bin Yasar, from Arak, as indicated by the narrations we pointed to there.Abu Dawud narrated something similar in meaning at 1594, via the route of Abdullah, that is Ibn Umar al-Umari, from a man, from Makhul, from Arak, from Abu Hurairah. Bayhaqi narrated it in Sunan al-Kubra 4:117 via the route of Abu Dawud, then Bayhaqi said, "Makhul did not hear it from Arak, he only narrated it from Sulayman bin Yasar, from Arak." Bayhaqi also narrated it via the route of Jafar bin Awn, from Usama bin Zayd, from Makhul, from Arak, that is, dropping Sulayman bin Yasar as well, just like the narration of Ismail bin Umaya found here, from Makhul. Bayhaqi argued for establishing Sulayman bin Yasar in the chain using evidence similar to what we mentioned in 7391 for establishing Arak in it.What appears clear to me now is that this and that are instances of confusion on Makhul's part, not an error by the copyists, because the two chains also appeared, with the same omission found in them, in Jami al-Masanid 7:186 for the previous hadith, and 7:190 for this hadith, and because Nasai narrated it by this same route at 1:342, via the route of Amr bin Wadhdhah, from Ismail bin Umaya, from Makhul, from Arak, matching the narration found here.As for the body of the hadith, it is sahih, narrated by the group, as we mentioned at 7293.