Azami 2063

Ibn Hibban (1888), Hakim (1/229), and Bayhaqi (2/386) all narrated it from the hadith of Hisham bin Ammar, who said, Abdul-Hameed bin Abu Ishrin narrated to us, from Uzai, from Yahya bin Abu Kathir, from Abu Salama, from Abu Hurairah, and he mentioned it. Its isnad is hasan because of the discussion surrounding Abdul-Hameed bin Abu Ishrin, who was the scribe of Uzai, though he is hasan al-hadith. Hakim said, "Both isnads (meaning this one and the one that follows) are sahih, though the two of them did not include it." The other isnad is what Imam Ahmad narrated (22642), and Ibn Khuzayma graded it sahih (662), as did Hakim, and from him Bayhaqi (2/386), all of them from the hadith of Walid bin Muslim, from Uzai, from Yahya bin Abu Kathir, from Abdullah bin Abu Qatada, from his father, from the Prophet ﷺ, and he mentioned the hadith, similarly.Hakim said, "It is sahih according to the criterion of the two Shaykhs (Bukhari and Muslim), though they did not include it, and what I believe is that the two of them did not include it because of a disagreement about it between the scribe of Uzai and Walid bin Muslim."I say, the scribe of Uzai is Abdul-Hameed bin Abu Ishrin, who is hasan al-hadith as mentioned before, and he attributed the hadith to the musnad of Abu Hurairah. As for Walid bin Muslim, he was a mudallis who frequently smoothed over the chain of Uzai and dropped out the weak narrators, as Daraqutni said, "He transmits from Uzai hadiths that Uzai actually received from weak shaykhs." This has been pointed out, yet he did not take heed, so someone like him cannot be set against what Abdul-Hameed bin Abu Ishrin narrated, unless one says, perhaps Yahya bin Abu Kathir had two teachers. And Allah knows best.