Ahmad 7969

Its chain of transmission is sahih. It appears in Jami al-Masanid 7:338, from this very place, and Bukhari related it 6:329 (Fath) from Muhammad bin Bashshar, from Muhammad bin Jafar - the teacher of Ahmad here - with this same chain. He also related it 1:491-492, 8:420 from Ishaq bin Ibrahim, from Rawh bin Ubada, and from Muhammad bin Jafar - both from Shuba, with the same wording, similarly. He also related it 3:64, then 6:242 from Mahmud bin Ghaylan, from Shababa, from Shuba, though he did not give the wording in full in either of these last two. Muslim related it 1:152 from Ishaq bin Ibrahim and Ishaq bin Mansur, both from Nadr bin Shumayl, from Shuba, then from Muhammad bin Bashshar, from Muhammad bin Jafar - and from Abu Bakr bin Abu Shayba, from Shababa, both from Shuba.Regarding the wording "fadaatuhu," Ibn Athir said, that is, he suddenly confronted me during my prayer. As for the wording "fadaatuhu," this is how it is established in the original manuscripts of the Musnad and in Jami al-Masanid with the plain dal, and in manuscript K there is a mark over the dal indicating it is unpointed. It is pronounced with a fatha on the dal and the ayn (both plain letters), and with the doubled, vowelled ta. In the version of Nadr bin Shumayl from Shuba as found in Muslim, it is "fadhaatuhu," with the same pattern of vowelling except that it has the dotted dhal instead of the plain dal. Bukhari likewise reported it from Nadr in this form, as will be mentioned. Both readings are sahih and eloquent.Ibn Athir said, that is, I strangled him. Both "daat" and "dhaat," with dal or dhal, mean a violent shove, and "daat" can also mean rubbing something into the dust. In Lisan, it says, "daaahu yadaauhu daatan" means he pushed him with a violent push, and it is also said with the dotted dhal, which will be mentioned. Then, under the dotted-dhal entry, it says, "dhaaahu fi al-turab yadhaauhu dhaatan" means he rubbed him into the dust, as though pushing him down into water, and it is also said to mean the most severe form of strangling. "Dhaaahu dhaatan" means he strangled him. "Al-dhaat" means a violent shove and a forceful squeeze, and the verb functions the same way. Likewise, "dhaamahu dhaaman" means he strangled him, and "dhaataha" and "dhaazaha" mean he strangled him with the utmost severity... "Al-daat" and "al-dhaat," with dal or dhal, mean a violent shove.Bukhari said in Sahih 3:14 (Fath) [2:64 of the Sultaniyya printing of the main text], then Nadr bin Shumayl said, "fadhaatuhu" means I strangled him, and "fadaatuhu" comes from Allah's saying, "the Day they are thrust" [meaning, they are pushed]. The correct form is "fadaatuhu," yet this is how he related it, with the ayn and ta both doubled. So the version with the dotted dhal is sahih just as the version with the plain dal is, and both have a light, unstressed ayn. Nadr bin Shumayl erred in doubling the ayn along with the plain dal, as Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, indicated was an error on his part. What can be understood from Ibn Hajar's words in Fath 3:64-65 is that the one who related it with the doubled ayn was Shuba, and that it was Nadr who was faulted for that, though the wording allows for either interpretation.As for his statement, "Then I remembered the prayer of my brother Sulayman, 'My Lord, "grant me a kingdom such as will not belong to anyone after me"'" - this is how it is established in the original manuscripts of the Musnad and in Jami al-Masanid. It is apparent that he is alluding to Sulayman's prayer by way of quotation, not reciting the verse itself, since the actual wording of verse 35 of Surah Sad is, "He said, 'My Lord, forgive me and grant me a kingdom such as will not belong to anyone after me" [Sad 38:35]. What appears in the version of Nadr bin Shumayl as found in Muslim is, "My Lord, forgive me and grant me a kingdom such as will not belong to anyone after me", following the exact wording of the verse. All the versions we have mentioned in Bukhari, like the version in the Musnad here, are by way of quotation, not by way of reciting the verse. However, Ibn Hajar related, regarding the first of Bukhari's versions, 1:491-492, that the version of Abu Dharr - one of the narrators of the Sahih - contains the exact text of the recitation, unlike the rest of the versions.He then said, Kirmani said, perhaps he mentioned it by way of quotation, not with the intention of reciting it. I [the speaker being Ibn Hajar] say, it occurs in Muslim's version, as in the version of Abu Dharr, following the pattern of the recitation. It appears that this is an alteration made by some of the narrators. I say, this is indeed how Ibn Hajar transmitted it from the version of Abu Dharr. However, what I have seen in this place in the Yuniniyya edition of Bukhari matches the version in the Musnad, and no other version attributed to Abu Dharr was mentioned in its margin. See the Sultaniyya edition 1:99. It may be that Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, simply forgot about the remaining versions we referred to in Bukhari, for they are exactly like this version, with no mention of any difference in manuscript or in the various narrations.As for his statement, "So Allah cast him back, disgraced," meaning, Allah cast him back disgraced. This is what is established in Muslim's version. Ibn Kathir mentioned this hadith in his Tafsir 7:209, citing one of Bukhari's versions, then said, and likewise Muslim and Nasai related it, from the hadith of Shuba, with the same chain.