Azami 2945

Ibn Khuzayma narrated it (1224) from Muhammad bin Yahya, who said, Ismail bin Abdullah bin Zurara al-Raqqi narrated to us in Baghdad, Khalid bin Abdullah narrated to us, and Muhammad bin Amr narrated to me, from Abu Salama, from Abu Hurairah, and he related the hadith.Hakim also narrated it in Mustadrak (1/314) through the route of Ismail bin Abdullah bin Zurara, with the same wording. He said, "It is sahih according to the criterion of Muslim."This is a mistake on his part, for Ismail bin Abdullah bin Zurara al-Raqqi is not one of the narrators of the six books at all. Rather, he belongs to the narrators mentioned for the sake of distinction, as the Hafiz said in Taqrib, meaning he was mentioned only so that he could be distinguished from someone else. He is, however, trustworthy.Dhahabi said in Kashif, in the biography of Ismail bin Abdullah bin Khalid al-Abdari al-Raqqi al-Sukkari, the qadi of Damascus, who is among the narrators of Ibn Majah, "Ibn Asakir erred, mentioning in his place Ismail bin Abdullah bin Zurara al-Raqqi, whereas this one had died long before." End of quote.However, Ibn Khuzayma found fault with the hadith, saying, "This sheikh, Ismail bin Abdullah, was not corroborated in connecting this report all the way back. Darawardi narrated it from Muhammad bin Amr, from Abu Salama, as a mursal report, and Hammad bin Salama narrated it from Muhammad bin Amr, from Abu Salama, as his own saying."What he said is open to question, for Ismail bin Abdullah was not alone in connecting this hadith fully. Ibn Adi narrated it (2205/6) through another route, from Qays bin Hafs, who said, Muhammad bin Dinar narrated to us, who said, Muhammad bin Amr bin Alqama narrated to us, with the same wording.Muhammad bin Dinar al-Tahi was from Basra. Ibn Adi said of him, "Despite this, his hadith is hasan, though most of what he narrates he narrates alone."I say, however, in this hadith he was not alone, as you have now learned.