Azami 3940

Abu Dawud (1575) and Nasai (2446) both narrated it through two routes, from Bahz bin Hakeem, from his father, from his grandfather, and he related it. Ibn Khuzayma (2266) and Hakim (1/397–398) graded it sahih, and he said, "This is a hadith with a sahih chain according to what we have already mentioned regarding validating this scroll, and the two of them did not include it."I say, its chain of transmission is hasan because of Bahz and his father, both of whom render the hadith hasan, and his grandfather is Muawiya bin Hayda Qushayri, who was a companion.As for his saying, "For every forty, a two-year-old female camel," this means whatever exceeds one hundred and twenty, as explained in the letter of Abu Bakr.As for his saying, "seeking reward," it means seeking his reward with Allah.Ibn Hibban spoke harshly about Bahz bin Hakeem because of this hadith in Majruhin (144), saying, "A group of our leading scholars abandoned him, and were it not for the hadith, 'We will take it, and half of his camels, as a determined command from our Lord,' we would have included him among the trustworthy. He is one of those regarding whom I seek Allah's guidance ."I say, I do not know who these leading scholars are who abandoned Bahz bin Hakeem. Ibn Hibban himself reported from Imam Ahmad and Ishaq bin Ibrahim that both of them relied on him as evidence. Yahya bin Main was asked about Bahz bin Hakeem, from his father, from his grandfather, and he said, "It is a sahih chain, provided that whoever comes after Bahz is trustworthy."Ali bin Madini also considered him trustworthy, and Ibn Adi said, "Trustworthy people have narrated from him, Zuhri and a group of trustworthy narrators have narrated from him, and I hope that there is no harm in him. I have not seen any objectionable hadith from him, and if a trustworthy narrator relates from him, then there is no harm in it."So then, who are these leading scholars who abandoned Bahz?Indeed, Abu Hatim said, "He is a shaykh whose hadith is recorded, but he is not relied upon as evidence."So the scholars differed regarding relying on his hadith as evidence, not that they abandoned him. Hafiz Dhahabi said, in response to Ibn Hibban's statement, "a group abandoned him," "I do not know of anyone who ever abandoned him at all. Rather, they may refrain from relying on his report as evidence. As for the hadith in question, it is something that Bahz bin Hakeem narrated alone, entirely and completely, and some of the independent jurists have adopted it." This is the end of Dhahabi's statement. See his biography in Tarikh Islam, and he also defended him in Mizan (1/354), so refer to it.As for the punishment of one who withholds zakat in this world, namely the taking of half his wealth, Ahmad held this view, and it is an old opinion of Shafii. Then Shafii and his followers came to hold that Bahz's hadith was abrogated, or they weakened it, because Bayhaqi reported from Shafii that he said, "The scholars of hadith do not establish this hadith as sound, and had it been established, we would have held to it."Nawawi said, "This is an explicit statement from Shafii that the scholars of hadith graded this hadith as daif." See Majmu (5/332, 337).And he said in Khulasa (2/1079), "Its chain of transmission up to Bahz is sahih, but they differed regarding relying on Bahz as evidence, and Shafii reported that this hadith is daif according to the scholars of hadith, and our companions claimed that it is abrogated." End.