Azami 2961

Imam Ahmad (21944) narrated it from Harun bin Maruf, who said, Ibn Wahb said, Haywa reported to us, from Ibn Hadi, from Muhammad bin Ibrahim Taymi, from Umayr, and he mentioned it. Its chain is sahih. Ibn Hibban (879) also graded it sahih, and reported it through the route of Harmala, from Ibn Wahb, with this same chain. Haywa is Ibn Shurayh Masri. Ibn Hadi is Yazid bin Abdullah bin Usama bin Had Laythi.Imam Ahmad (21945) also narrated it from Harun, from Ibn Wahb, from Haywa, from Umar bin Malik, from Ibn Hadi, thereby inserting Umar bin Malik between Haywa and Ibn Hadi. It has been established that Haywa heard directly from Ibn Hadi, so this chain is an instance of "additions within otherwise connected chains" (al-mazid fi muttasil al-asanid).As for what Abu Dawud (1168) narrated through the route of Ibn Wahb, from Haywa and Umar bin Malik, from Ibn Hadi, making Umar bin Malik a co-narrator alongside Haywa, Umar bin Malik, who is Sharabi, did indeed share with Haywa in narrating from Ibn Hadi, just as Ibn Wahb narrated from him, as Mizzi mentioned in Tahzib Kamal. So the chain is sahih by both routes.The hadith has another chain, narrated by Imam Ahmad (21943) from Qutayba bin Saeed, who said, Layth bin Saad reported to us, from Khalid bin Yazid, from Saeed bin Abu Hilal, from Yazid bin Abdullah, from Umayr, the freedman of Abul-Lahm, and he mentioned it. However, Tirmidhi (557) and Nasai (1514) narrated it from Qutayba bin Saeed and added, after "Umayr, freedman of Abul-Lahm," the words "from Abul-Lahm." Tirmidhi flagged this version as anomalous (shadh), saying, "This is how Ibn Qutayba stated this hadith, 'from Abul-Lahm,' but we know of no other hadith from him from the Prophet ﷺ besides this single one, whereas Umayr, freedman of Abul-Lahm, narrated several hadiths from the Prophet ﷺ and had companionship with him," end of quote.So either Qutayba bin Saeed was not precise in transmitting this hadith, sometimes narrating it from Umayr, freedman of Abul-Lahm, and other times from Abul-Lahm himself, or an error occurred in Musnad Imam Ahmad. The editors added "Abul-Lahm" based on Jami al-Masanid by Ibn Kathir and Atraf Musnad by Ibn Hajar, noting that this addition does not appear in the manuscripts (m), (r), and (q), but was present in manuscript (z), and was later struck out.I say, what appears from reviewing Musnad Imam Ahmad is that "Abul-Lahm" was not originally part of it, since Imam Ahmad recorded this hadith under the heading of "Umayr, freedman of Abul-Lahm," in addition to what the editors mentioned, that the mention of "Abul-Lahm" does not appear in many of the manuscripts. And Allah knows best what is correct.The hadith was also reported by Hakim (1/327) through the route of Yahya bin Bukayr, from Layth, from Khalid bin Yazid, from Saeed bin Abu Hilal, from Yazid bin Abdullah, from Umayr, as a marfu narration, without mentioning "Abul-Lahm." He said, "Its chain is sahih, though the two of them (Bukhari and Muslim) did not report it, and Umayr, freedman of Abul-Lahm, had companionship." I say, this suggests that the hadith belongs to the collection of narrations from Umayr, freedman of Abul-Lahm. This is how Hakim graded it sahih, but its defect is that between Yazid bin Abdullah bin Had and Umayr, freedman of Abul-Lahm, stands Muhammad bin Ibrahim Taymi, as appears in the earlier chain. Likewise, Ibn Hajar stated in Tahzib, under the entry for Yazid bin Abdullah bin Had Laythi, "The correct chain has Muhammad bin Ibrahim Taymi between them," end of quote. This means that Hakim's chain contains a break (inqita)."Abul-Lahm," with the hamza lengthened, is an active participle from "abaa" (to refuse). His name was Huwayrith bin Abdullah Ghifari, though some say Abdullah bin Abdul-Malik, and others say Khalaf bin Abdullah. He was martyred on the day of Hunayn in the eighth year after the Hijrah. He was called "Abul-Lahm" because he did not eat meat, or, according to another account, because he did not eat what was slaughtered upon sacrificial stones dedicated to idols. If he was indeed martyred on the day of Hunayn in the eighth year of the Hijrah, then it would be unlikely for him to be the narrator of the hadith about the prayer for rain.As for his statement, "the stones of Zayt," this refers to a place in Madinah within the lava tract (harra), so named because of the blackness of its stones, as though they had been coated with oil. And his statement, "Zawra," this refers to a place that was well known near the market of Madinah, elevated like a cave, close to the masjid, though it is no longer known today, and it has perhaps now become part of the expansion of Masjid Nabawi.