Ahmad 8073

Its chain of transmission is sahih. Abu Amir is Aqadi, Abdul-Malik bin Amr. Aflah bin Saeed, the freedman of the Ansari, the Qubai (from the people of Quba), is trustworthy. Ibn Saad and Ibn Main affirmed his trustworthiness. Bukhari mentioned him in al-Kabir 1/2/53, and Ibn Abu Hatim in 1/1/324, and neither of them mentioned any criticism of him. Ibn Hibban went to a severe extreme regarding him, making a gross error, saying, "He narrates fabrications from trustworthy narrators. It is not permissible to rely on him as evidence, nor to narrate from him under any circumstance!" He then made the basis of this judgment his narration of this very hadith. Ibn Hajar said in al-Tahdhib, "Yet he was still negligent, for he listed him in the fourth tier of trustworthy narrators," meaning Ibn Hibban did this.Abdullah bin Nafi, the freedman of Umm Salama, whose name was Utaba, was a trustworthy successor. Ajli, Abu Zura, Nasai and others affirmed his trustworthiness. Ibn Saad mentioned him in 5:219 and said, "He was trustworthy and narrated many hadiths." Ibn Abu Hatim also mentioned him in 2/2/53.This hadith will come again with this same chain at 8276. It also appears in Jami al-Masanid wal-Sunan 7:210, taken from this very place. Muslim related it in 2:355 through Abu Amir Aqadi, the teacher of Ahmad here, with this same chain. He also related it before that through Zayd bin Hubab, from Aflah bin Saeed, with similar wording.Ibn Hibban also related it in his book al-Majruhin, p. 118 [photographed manuscript], through Isa bin Yunus, from Aflah. He declared it severely daif because of this hadith, and found fault with it for a strange reason, one that is neither acceptable nor justifiable. He said, "This report with this wording is fabricated! Suhayl related it from his father, from Abu Hurairah, from the Prophet ﷺ, 'There are two types among my nation whom I have not seen, men with whips like the tails of cattle in their hands, and women who are clothed yet naked.'"It is obviously clear that this cannot serve as a valid basis for rejecting the other hadith. The hadith of Aflah carries the same meaning as the hadith of Suhayl, except that one of them mentions a single category while the other mentions both categories, and both hadiths are sahih. The hadith of Suhayl will come in the Musnad at 8650 and 9678, and Muslim also related it in 2:355, with the wording, "Two categories among the people of Hell whom I have not seen," and so on.Ibn Jawzi also made a gross error, since he followed Ibn Hibban without investigation or careful consideration, and mentioned this hadith in al-Mawduat. Ibn Hajar responded to him forcefully in al-Qawl al-Musaddad, pp. 32-34, demonstrating the soundness of both hadiths, and mentioned that Hakim had graded them both sahih, through the chain of Aflah and through the chain of Suhayl. He said, "I have not found in Ibn Jawzi's book al-Mawduat anything he judged to be fabricated while it appears in one of the Sahihayn, except for this hadith. This is indeed a severe negligence on his part." Then at the end of his discussion he said, "Ibn Jawzi committed a wrong by mentioning in al-Mawduat a hadith from Sahih Muslim. This is among his strange errors!"As for the phrase "if the time is prolonged for you," this is what is firmly established in the three original manuscripts. In Jami al-Masanid wal-Sunan it appears as "prolonged," which is a variant found in the margin of the two manuscripts K and M, and this is also the wording found in Muslim's version.