Ahmad 7928

Its isnad is sahih up to his saying, "So Khubayb remained with them as a captive," and the rest of it is mursal, inserted into it. However, its connected transmission has been established, as will come in the sourcing, Allah willing. Imam Ahmad narrated it from two teachers, from Ibrahim bin Saad. He narrated it from Sulayman bin Dawud Hashimi, from Ibrahim bin Saad. And he narrated it from Yaqub bin Ibrahim bin Saad, from his father. He presented it in the wording of Sulayman Hashimi, as he said here.Umar, or Amr, bin Usayd bin Jariya Thaqafi. The narrations differ regarding his name, whether it is Umar with a damma on the ayn, or Amr with a fatha on it. The more correct view is that it is Amr.We must first establish which of the two wordings is fixed in the Musnad at this point. It is established in M and in Jami al-Masanid as Umar, as we have set it in the main text, while in H and K it occurs as Amr, meaning with a fatha on the ayn. We have preferred what we have established, because it is what is fixed in the narration of Ibrahim bin Saad from Zuhri, and because it is what is fixed as being the narration of the Musnad. Hafiz said in Fath al-Bari 7:291 that Ibrahim bin Saad says, from Zuhri, from Umar with a damma on the ayn. This is how Ibn Saad narrated it, from Maen bin Isa, from him, and Ibn Saad's narration is established this way in Tabaqat 2/1/39-40, "Maen bin Isa Ashjai informed us, Ibrahim bin Saad narrated to us, from Ibn Shihab, from Umar bin Usayd bin Ala bin Jariya." The same occurs in Bukhari's narration from Musa bin Ismail, from Ibrahim, that is, Ibn Saad, who said, "Umar bin Usayd bin Jariya Thaqafi informed me." See Bukhari 5:78-79 [from the Sultaniyya edition]. Hafiz said in Tahdheeb 8:41, and it occurs for Ahmad through the route of Ibrahim bin Saad as Amr bin Usayd. Thus it is established that his name in the narration of Ibrahim bin Saad is Umar with a damma on the ayn, and that this is what is fixed in the copies of the Musnad, and this supports and gives preference to what is in M and Jami al-Masanid, and what is established as Amr in the last two copies of the Musnad, Kh and L, would then be an alteration and adjustment made by some of the copyists.This concerns the copies of the Musnad. As for the narrator's name in itself, apart from the copies of the Musnad, there is much disagreement about it and about his lineage. The correct view that we consider sound is what Ibn Saad mentioned in his biography 5:188, where he said, "Amr bin Abu Sufyan bin Usayd [with a fatha on the hamza and kasra on the sin] bin Jariya bin Abdullah bin Abu Salama bin Abdul-Uzza bin Ghayra [with a kasra on the ghayn and fatha on the ya] bin Awf bin Qasi," and he is Thaqif, an ally of Banu Zahra. Some call him Umar with a damma on the ayn, as we mentioned. Hafiz said in Fath al-Bari 7:42, "Most of Zuhri's companions said Amr with a fatha on the ayn, and some of them said Umar with a damma on the ayn. Bukhari preferred that it is Amr." He also said, at 7:291, regarding Bukhari's narration through the route of Mamar from Zuhri from Amr bin Abu Sufyan Thaqafi, "This is how Mamar, Shuayb, and others say it... while Ibrahim bin Saad says, from Zuhri, from Umar with a damma on the ayn. This is how Ibn Saad narrated it, from Maen bin Isa, from him," meaning from Ibrahim bin Saad, "and Tayalisi likewise said it from Ibrahim, and Dhuhli affirmed this in Zuhriyyat. However, in the account of the Battle of Badr," meaning from Sahih Bukhari, volume 5, page 240, Fath, "from Musa bin Ismail, from Ibrahim bin Saad, it occurs as Amr with a fatha on the ayn. Abu Dawud narrated it from the aforementioned Musa and said Umar, and likewise said Ibn Zuhri's nephew, and Yunus, from Layth's narration from him, from Zuhri, from Umar. Bukhari said in his Tarikh, 'Amr is more correct,'" meaning in Tarikh al-Kabir.Thus the copies of Bukhari differ at this point, in the account of the Battle of Badr, regarding the narration of Ibrahim bin Saad. What is fixed in the Yuniniyya, as we have quoted from the Sultaniyya edition, is Umar, marked with the sign of correctness, but Hafiz's quotation from this passage of Bukhari states explicitly, as you see, that it is Amr, and this disagreement in the copies of Bukhari was recorded by Qastallani in his commentary 6:210, where he stated explicitly that it is Umar with a damma on the ayn, which indicates that its original form in the Yuniniyya is thus. He then mentioned that in the narration of Asili, Ibn Asakir, and Abu Dharr from Mustamli and Kashmihani it is Amr with a fatha on the ayn, and then he also quoted this from Fath al-Bari from Kashmihani. These narrations in the copies of Bukhari, which Qastallani recorded, are established in the margin of the Sultaniyya edition, quoting from the margin of its source from the Yuniniyya.As for the narration of Abu Dawud to which Hafiz referred, it is in the Sunan, 2660, but in it we find, "from Amr bin Jariya Thaqafi." I do not know whether this is a correction made by some of the copyists, or whether the copy of the Sunan that came to Hafiz had Umar with a damma on the ayn. However, Hafiz mentioned in Tahdheeb something different from what he mentioned in Fath al-Bari, saying, "It occurs for Abu Dawud, through the route of Ibrahim," meaning Ibn Saad, "Amr bin Jariya," attributing him to his father's grandfather. Perhaps this indicates to us that the copies of Abu Dawud available to Hafiz differed, some having Umar, as he quoted in Fath al-Bari, and some having Amr, as he quoted in Tahdheeb.Hafiz's reference to Tayalisi's narration is in his Musnad, 2097, but there is a printing mix-up in it, which should be corrected by referring to this quotation of Hafiz's and to Bayhaqi's Sunan al-Kubra 9:145-146, where he narrated it through the route of Tayalisi.Ibn Abu Hatim gave him two separate biographical entries in Jarh wa Tadil 3/1/97, one under the name Umar with a damma on the ayn, saying, "Umar bin Usayd bin Jariya Thaqafi, an ally of Banu Zahra," and then he mentioned the disagreement about him, then narrated from Abu Zura that he preferred Umar, and from his father Abu Hatim that he affirmed with certainty that Amr is correct. He then gave him another entry, 3/1/234, under the name Amr, and mentioned his lineage as "Amr bin Abu Sufyan bin Usayd bin Jariya Thaqafi," without mentioning the disagreement between Umar and Amr. Ibn Abu Hatim also mentioned that Ibrahim bin Ismail Ansari narrated from Zuhri "from Umar, or Amr," and Hafiz likewise said in Tajeel, pages 296-297, "Ibn Mujammi narrated it from Zuhri and said, 'from Umar, or Amr.'" We have not found anyone who narrated this version, and we do not give it weight, because Ibrahim bin Ismail bin Mujammi Ansari is daif, especially regarding Zuhri. Bukhari said in Kabir 1/1/271, "He has much confusion regarding Zuhri." Jafar bin Awn said, "Ibn Mujammi was deaf, and he used to sit with Zuhri but could hardly hear except after such and such."In any case, we consider it more likely that his correct name is Amr, based on Bukhari's preference, as quoted by Hafiz from his Tarikh, and based on Abu Hatim's preference, as narrated by his son, and because most narrators mentioned him by the name Amr, and because Muslim narrated another hadith for him, 1:75, through the route of Zuhri's nephew and through the route of Yunus, both from Zuhri, from Amr bin Abu Sufyan bin Usayd bin Jariya Thaqafi, and we know of no disagreement about his name in that other hadith.Then there is the disagreement about his lineage. What we prefer, after tracing what we found of the narrations and references, is what we quoted from Ibn Saad in his biography, "Amr bin Abu Sufyan bin Usayd bin Jariya bin Abdullah bin Abu Salama bin Abdul-Uzza bin Ghayra bin Awf bin Qasi." Usayd is the grandfather of his paternal grandfather. So whoever said of him "Umar" or "Amr ibn Usayd" attributed him to his great-grandfather, and whoever said "ibn Jariya" attributed him to his father's grandfather.Hafiz followed this in Tahdheeb, and likewise in Isabah 4:61, in the biography of Usayd bin Jariya, where he said, "He is the grandfather of Amr bin Abu Sufyan bin Usayd bin Jariya, Zuhri's teacher, whose hadith from Abu Hurairah was included in the Sahih." But he became confused, and I am wary of saying he mixed things up, for he said in Fath al-Bari 7:240, regarding Bukhari's narration in which it occurs "from Amr bin Jariya," "It occurred in the account of the Rajee expedition, as will come," meaning Bukhari's narration 7:291, "Amr bin Abu Sufyan," "and this is the kunya of his father, the father of Amr, who is his grandfather Usayd, and that his kunya was Abu Sufyan!" I have never found this statement from anyone else at all, and it is an oversight on his part.Hafiz also made another error at that same passage, 7:240, Fath, but it is based on a narration from Ibn Saad. He said, regarding Bukhari's narration "from Amr bin Jariya," "This is an attribution to his grandfather, rather to his father's grandfather, because he is ibn Usayd bin Ala bin Jariya!" This lineage indeed occurs in Ibn Saad's narration of this hadith, 2/1/39, from Maen bin Isa, from Ibrahim bin Saad, from Ibn Shihab, "from Umar bin Usayd bin Ala bin Jariya!" But Ibrahim bin Saad's narration, which we have here in the Musnad, and which is also found with Tayalisi, Bayhaqi, and others, does not contain "ibn Ala." The more correct view, in my opinion, is that the addition of Ala in his lineage is a mistake made by Ibn Saad, or by his teacher Maen bin Isa.Ala bin Jariya is the brother of Usayd bin Jariya on their father's side. He is a well known companion. Ibn Saad gave him a biography, 5:372, saying, "Ala bin Jariya bin Abdullah bin Abu Salama bin Abdul-Uzza bin Ghayra bin Awf bin Thaqif," and he is an ally of Banu Zahra. This is his correct lineage. Hafiz also gave him a biography in Isabah 4:259, but did not present his complete lineage. Rather, Ibn Abu Hatim mentioned him in Jarh, 2/2/254, in the biography of Abdul-Malik bin Abdullah bin Abu Sufyan Thaqafi, saying, "He is the son of Abu Sufyan bin Jariya, and his father's uncle is Ala bin Jariya, one of the companions of the Messenger of Allah ," which involves a slight looseness in attributing Abu Sufyan to his grandfather Jariya, since he is actually Abu Sufyan bin Usayd bin Jariya, which would make Ala the uncle of Abdul-Malik's grandfather, not the uncle of his father. This kind of looseness is common in the mention of lineages, but it indicates, in any case, that Ala is not in the direct line of ancestry of Amr bin Abu Sufyan, and is not a grandfather of his father, but rather his father's uncle.This concerns the first part of the hadith, whose isnad is connected. As for the second part of it, from the beginning of his saying, "until they agreed to kill him," to the end of the hadith, it is mursal, inserted into the connected hadith. However, it has also been established as connected, for Hafiz said in Fath al-Bari 7:293, "This story occurred inserted in this way in Mamar's narration, and likewise in Ibrahim bin Saad's, as mentioned earlier in the account of the Battle of Badr, but Shuayb connected it in his narration, as mentioned earlier in the chapter on jihad."Hafiz is referring by this to Bukhari's narration, 6:115, from Abu Yaman, from Shuayb, from Zuhri, from Amr bin Abu Sufyan, from Abu Hurairah, mentioning the hadith up to his saying, "So Khubayb remained with them as a captive," and then saying afterward, "Ubaydullah bin Ayadh informed me that the daughter of Harith informed him that when they gathered, he borrowed a razor from her to shave with, so she lent it to him, then she took a son of mine while I was not paying attention, until he reached him." She said, "I found him sitting him on his thigh, with the razor in his hand," and she continued the hadith to its end, similar to the earlier narration.The wording of Shuayb's narration is explicit that this account is from the daughter of Harith bin Amir bin Nawfal. In fact, Ibrahim bin Saad's narration here, and Mamar's narration coming at 8082, both of which contain the insertion of the end of the hadith at its beginning, indicate by their wording that the account within it is in the words of the daughter of Harith. It appears that the insertion and the mursal transmission of the second part were done by Zuhri himself, as becomes apparent from reflecting on the wording of each of the two narrations. Hafiz said, "The one who said 'so he informed me' is Zuhri, and it is a mistake for anyone to claim that it is Amr bin Abu Sufyan."This teacher of Zuhri, Ubaydullah, is Ubaydullah bin Ayadh bin Amr bin Abdul-Qari, a trustworthy successor, whose narration has already appeared in hadith 656. As for the daughter of Harith, Hafiz mentioned, quoting from Atraf by Khalaf, that her name was Zaynab, and he gave her a biography in Isabah 8:94, referring to this story of hers. It is strange that although her hadith is in Bukhari, none of the authors mention a Musnad narration for her, nor does anyone refer to one!This hadith is in Jami al-Masanid wal-Sunan 7:213-214, at this location, and will come at 8082, from Abdul-Razzaq, from Mamar, from Zuhri, with this isnad, similarly, containing the final story inserted as mursal. It is likewise in Musannaf Abdul-Razzaq 3:144-145. Abu Dawud Tayalisi narrated it in his Musnad, 2597, from Ibrahim bin Saad, from Zuhri, with it. Bayhaqi narrated it in Sunan al-Kubra 9:145-146 through the route of Tayalisi. Bukhari narrated it, 7:240, and Abu Dawud, 2660, both from Musa bin Ismail, from Ibrahim bin Saad, with it, but Abu Dawud abridged it considerably.Bukhari also narrated it, 6:115, from Abu Yaman, from Shuayb, from Zuhri, and then narrated a portion of it, 13:222, also from Abu Yaman. Likewise, Abu Dawud narrated it, 2661, from Ibn Awf, from Abu Yaman, with it, but he did not mention its wording, instead referring back to his earlier narration from Musa bin Ismail. Bayhaqi narrated a portion of it in Asma wa Sifat, page 209, through the route of Abu Yaman.Bukhari also narrated it, 7:291-296, through the route of Hisham bin Yusuf, from Mamar, from Zuhri, with it, at length, and here Hafiz explained it in Fath al-Bari with a hasan and thorough commentary. See the detailed account of the story at length in Sirat bin Hisham, pages 428-448, Ibn Saad 3/2/33-34, Tarikh Tabari 3:29-31, Tarikh bin Kathir 4:62-96, Jawami al-Sirah by Ibn Hazm, pages 176-178, and Sirat bin Sayyid al-Nas 2:40-43.Asim bin Thabit bin Abu Aqlah, with a fatha on the hamza, a saakin on the qaf, and ending with a plain ha, and Abu Aqlah's name was Qays bin Isma bin Malik, the Ansari. This Asim was among the earliest converts, one of those who witnessed Badr. He has a biography in Ibn Saad 3/2/33-34 and Isabah 4:3-4, and he was the commander of this expedition, as is established in the hadith. Hafiz said in Fath al-Bari, "It is stated in the Sirah that the commander over them was Marthad bin Abu Marthad, but what is in the Sahih," meaning this hadith, "is more correct."His saying, "the grandfather of Asim bin Umar bin Khattab," means that he was his maternal grandfather, and this is an oversight by some of the narrators, because Asim bin Thabit is the maternal uncle of Asim bin Umar, not his grandfather, since the mother of Asim bin Umar was Jamila bint Thabit bin Abu Aqlah, who was the sister of Asim bin Thabit. See her biography in Ibn Saad 8:252 and Isabah 8:40, and see Nasab Quraysh by Musab, pages 349, 353, and the biography of Asim bin Umar in Isabah 5:57. It is said that this Jamila's name was originally Asiya, but the Prophet changed it and named her Jamila, as we explained previously in the commentary on hadith 4682.Al-Hudaah, with a fatha on the ha and a doubled plain dal, this is how it is vocalized in Bukhari 5:79 [from the Sultaniyya edition], and in its margin the narration al-Hudaah with a fatha on the dal followed by an alif, and that in a sound copy it is al-Hudaah with a saakin on the dal, as in the Yuniniyya. Hafiz stated in Fath al-Bari that this latter reading is the narration of the majority, meaning of Bukhari's narrators, and that dropping the hamza with the doubling of the dal is in Ibn Ishaq's narration in the Sirah. What is established in the Sultaniyya edition is more reliable.Abu Luhyan, with a kasra on the lam and a saakin on the plain ha, he is Luhyan bin Huzayl bin Mudrika.Al-Fadfad, with two fatha-vowelled fas and two plain dals, the first being saakin, this is a place with roughness and elevation. Hafiz said it is the elevated hillock."Give us your hands," meaning surrender and submit, and this is figurative, because the one who surrenders throws down whatever weapon is in his hand and gives his hand to the one capturing him so he may hold onto it.His saying, "As for me, by Allah, I will not descend under the protection of a disbeliever," in J it reads "By Allah" without the fa, which is an error, and the correction is from L, M, and Jami al-Masanid.Khubayb, with a damma on the kha and two ba's in diminutive form, Ansari, is Khubayb bin Adi bin Malik bin Amir, one of those who witnessed Badr. See Jamharat al-Ansab by Ibn Hazm, page 316, and Isabah 2:103-104.Zayd bin Dathinna, with a fatha on the plain dal, a kasra on the tha with dots, and a fatha on the nun, bin Muawiya bin Ubayd Ansari, one of those who witnessed Badr and Uhud. See Jamharat al-Ansab, page 337, and Isabah 3:77.His saying, "and another man," Hafiz mentioned in Fath al-Bari, quoting from Ibn Ishaq, the naming of this...