Ahmad 7936

Its chain of transmission is sahih. The chain of this hadith and its beginning were missing from the three original manuscripts, H, M, and K. We have restored it from the sound, ancient manuscript S. In the three originals, its beginning came after the previous hadith like this, "one of them against the other." A blank space was left between this and the previous hadith. We did not find it in Jami al-Masanid wal-Sunan, because the section containing the musnad of Abu Hurairah has only survived from partway through the letter jim among the names of the successors who narrated from Abu Hurairah. The hadith is established in the standard collections and is known by this chain. It will come later in the Musnad at 8549 from Bahz and Affan, from Hammam, with this chain, in similar wording. It also comes at 10092 from Waki and Bahz, from Hammam, with this chain.Tayalisi related it in his Musnad at 2454, from Hammam, with this chain. Likewise Darimi related it at 2:143, Abu Dawud at 2133, Tirmidhi at 2:195, Nasai at 2:157, Ibn Majah at 1969, Ibn Hibban in his Sahih at 6:376-368 [from the manuscript of Al-Ihsan], Hakim in his Mustadrak at 2:186, and Bayhaqi in Sunan al-Kubra at 7:297, all of them by way of Hammam, from Qatada, with this chain.Hakim said, "This is a hadith that is sahih according to the standard of the two Shaykhs, though they did not include it," and Dhahabi agreed with him. Tirmidhi said, "Only Hammam bin Yahya related this hadith with a full chain from Qatada. Hisham Dastawai related it from Qatada, saying, 'It used to be said,' and we do not know this hadith as a raised report except through the report of Hammam."It seems that Tirmidhi is pointing toward finding fault with this connected chain by citing the other chain, which is a mere report not stated as a hadith proper. But this is not actually a defect. There is no harm in Qatada sometimes mentioning this without a chain, even though for him it is a connected, supported report, and at other times relating it as a connected, supported report. Connecting the chain and raising it to the Prophet is an addition from a trustworthy narrator, and such an addition is accepted.As for Hammam bin Yahya, no one can deny his trustworthiness and reliability, nor his precision and mastery. Ibn Abu Hatim related in his biographical entry on him, at 4/2/107-109, from Ahmad bin Hanbal, who said, "Hammam is firmly reliable among all the shaykhs." Also from Ahmad, he said, "I heard Ibn Mahdi say, 'In my view, Hammam is like Ibn Abu Aruba in truthfulness.'" He also related from Yahya bin Main, who said, "He is trustworthy and sound, and in matters concerning Qatada I prefer him to Hammad bin Salama, and his hadith from Qatada is the better of the two." So the narration of Hammam should not be faulted merely on account of the kind of remark that Tirmidhi made.