Azami 1797

Tirmidhi reported it (161). Ali bin Hajar told us, Ismail bin Ulaya told us, from Ayub, from Ibn Abu Mulayka, from Umm Salama, and he related the hadith. This chain is sahih. However, Tirmidhi pointed out a flaw in it, though it is not actually a flaw in the science of hadith. He noted that Ismail bin Ulaya narrated this hadith from Ibn Jurayj, from Ibn Abu Mulayka, from Umm Salama, and Tirmidhi says, "I found in my book, Ali bin Hajar informed me, from Ismail bin Ibrahim (who is Ibn Ulaya), from Ibn Jurayj." Then he said, "Bishr bin Muaz Basri told us, he said, Ismail bin Ulaya told us, from Ibn Jurayj with this chain, similarly, and this is more correct." That is the end of his statement.I say, this is how Imam Ahmad narrated it in his Musnad (26478 and 26647), from Ismail bin Ulaya, from Ibn Jurayj, from Ibn Abu Mulayka, from Umm Salama. But this does not preclude the possibility that Ibn Hajar had it through two paths, one from Ismail bin Ulaya, from Ayub, from Ibn Abu Mulayka, and the other through his own path and through the path of Bishr bin Muaz, both from Ismail bin Ulaya, from Ibn Jurayj, from Ibn Abu Mulayka, with the same wording. This is something acceptable within the science of hadith, so there is no need to accuse Ali bin Hajar of error, since he is trustworthy and a hafiz, nor to give preference to his narration from Ismail bin Ulaya from Ibn Jurayj, even though there is support for that view. Ibn Jurayj is known to conceal his sources and he did report this with an ambiguous form of transmission, so his narration needs corroboration. Ayub serves as a strong corroborator for him, and the text of the hadith is established through the narrations of others.