Azami 3664

Nasai narrated it (1924) from Qutayba, who said, Hammad narrated to us, from Ayub, from Muhammad bin Sirin, who mentioned it. Imam Ahmad narrated it (1728) from Abdul-Razzaq, from Maamar, from Ayub with the same wording. Muhammad bin Sirin did not hear anything at all from Ibn Abbas.Ali bin Madini said, "Regarding the hadiths of Muhammad bin Sirin from Ibn Abbas, Shuba said, He only heard them from Ikrima, whom he met in the days of Mukhtar, and he did not hear anything from Ibn Abbas." Ahmad said, "He did not hear from Ibn Abbas, he says of all of them, 'I was informed on the authority of Ibn Abbas.'"I say, Imam Ahmad likewise narrated it in his Musnad (1726) through another route, from Muhammad, who said, "I was informed that a funeral passed by Hasan bin Ali," then he mentioned it, adding at the end, "Hasan did not object to what Ibn Abbas said." From this it becomes known that Ikrima stands between them, so once the unnamed narrator is identified and found to be trustworthy, the isnad is sahih, while no one has explicitly stated that Muhammad bin Sirin did not hear from Hasan bin Ali, and Mizzi and others were content merely to list him among those from whom Muhammad bin Sirin narrated.Abu Majliz corroborated him, narrating from Ibn Abbas and from Hasan bin Ali the same story. Nasai narrated it (1926) from Yaqub bin Ibrahim, from Ibn Ulaya, from Sulayman Taymi, from Abu Majliz, who mentioned it. This isnad is sahih, except that it is mursal, as Yahya bin Main said when he was asked about it, but it strengthens the one before it. It has other chains with Nasai and others, but the one I have mentioned is the most sahih of them.In Sahih Bukhari (3837), from Abdul-Rahman bin Qasim, that Qasim used to walk in front of the funeral procession and would not stand for it, and he reported on the authority of Ayesha, who said, "The people of pre-Islamic ignorance used to stand for it. When they saw it, they would say, twice, 'You were with your family, whatever you were.'" That is, "You are no longer with your family now, but you are now in a better state than you were before in this world." They did not believe in the resurrection, but they hoped that their deceased would enjoy blessings after departing from this world.As for what is reported that his ﷺ standing was due to being disturbed by the spirit of the Jew, it is either daif or interrupted, and none of it is sahih.The jurisprudence of this chapter is as follows. The Prophet's ﷺ statement, "Death is a terror," and his saying, "Is it not a soul?" are evidence for the Prophet's ﷺ standing for the funeral. If this is the reason for the standing, then it remains applicable. So what is reported in the hadith of Ali bin Abu Talib, that he ﷺ stood then sat, is evidence for the recommendation of standing, not its obligation, for the hadith of Ali bin Abu Talib cannot be an abrogator if the reason for the standing is as described above. Other views have been stated, but what I have mentioned is preferable.As for what is reported from Ubada bin Samit, who said, "The Messenger of Allah used to stand for the funeral until it was placed in the grave niche. Then a rabbi from the Jews passed by and said, 'This is what we do.'" So the Prophet ﷺ sat down and said, "Sit, in opposition to them," this report is daif.Abu Dawud (3176), Tirmidhi (1020), and Ibn Majah (1545) all narrated it through the route of Abu Asbat Harithi (who is Bishr bin Rafi), from Abdullah bin Sulayman bin Junada bin Abu Umaya, from his father, from his grandfather, from Ubada bin Samit, who mentioned it. It contains a chain of daif narrators. The first of them is Abu Asbat Harithi, Bishr bin Rafi, who is daif, declared daif by Ahmad, Nasai, Abu Hatim, Bazzar, Daraqutni, and others, and Bukhari said, "His hadith is not corroborated." His teacher, Abdullah bin Sulayman bin Junada, is also daif, and his father, Sulayman bin Junada, has rejected narrations, as Abu Hatim and Bukhari said.Had this hadith been sahih, it would have been evidence for abrogating the hadiths of the previous chapter, but it is not sahih. Hafiz said in Fath al-Bari (3/181), "Had its isnad not been daif, it would have been a proof for abrogation."