Ahmad 8101

Its isnad is very daif. Faraj bin Fadala is daif and munkar al-hadith, as we mentioned in 581 and 5626. As for Abu Saeed Madini, Hafiz bin Kathir mentioned in Jami al-Masanid wal-Sunan that he was the freed slave of Abdullah bin Amir bin Kurayz. This may be him, or it may be someone else, due to the confusion caused by Faraj bin Fadala. For the hadith will come again at 10182 from Waki, from Faraj bin Fadala, from Abu Saad Himsi. Hafiz bin Kathir likewise mentioned it under the biography of Abu Saeed Himsi, without clarifying who he was, and Waki's version is also found in Tirmidhi, where it reads, from Abu Saeed Maqburi. In our view, all of this stems from an error on the part of Faraj bin Fadala.The hadith appears in Jami al-Masanid wal-Sunan 7:445, taken from this very passage. It also appears there at 7:444, taken from the coming narration at 10182. Tirmidhi related it in 4:291 through Waki, as we just mentioned, and said, "This is a hadith gharib." Haythami mentioned it in Majma al-Zawaid 10:172, saying, "Ahmad related it through Abu Yazid Madani, and in another version, from Abu Saeed Himsi, and I do not know either of them. The rest of its narrators are trustworthy." This is what Haythami said.But first, this hadith is not among the additions beyond the six books, since Tirmidhi has already related it. Second, the Musnad does not contain a narration from Abu Yazid Madini, rather, as you can see, it reads "Abu Saeed Madini told us." So either Haythami made a slip, or there was an error in the copy of the Musnad available to him. Third, the rest of the narrators in these two chains are not all trustworthy, since both isnads contain Faraj bin Fadala, who is daif, as we have said.