Azami 3946

Abu Dawud narrated it (1573) from Sulayman bin Dawud Mahri, who said, Ibn Wahb informed us, Jareer bin Hazim informed me, and he also named another narrator, from Abu Ishaq, from Asim bin Damra and Harith Awar, from Ali bin Abu Talib, and he related the hadith.Its isnad is hasan because of the discussion surrounding Asim bin Damra, whose hadith is hasan, and he is also paired here with Harith Awar, even though there is well-known criticism of him.His statement, "and he named another," was said by Sulayman bin Dawud Mahri, meaning that Ibn Wahb narrated it from Jareer bin Hazim, from another shaykh whose name Sulayman bin Dawud did not remember. But Jareer bin Hazim differed from this unnamed shaykh, for Jareer raised the hadith to the Prophet ﷺ, while this shaykh did not raise it to him. That is why he specifically noted that Jareer bin Hazim added to the hadith the phrase "from the Prophet ﷺ," so it appears that the other narrator did not say that.Sufyan, Sharik, and Zakariya bin Abu Zaida all narrated this hadith from Abu Ishaq and did not raise it, so it becomes clear that the error in raising it came from Jareer. Nevertheless, many scholars accepted Jareer's sole addition in raising it, and Zuhayr followed him in the basic hadith, saying, Abu Ishaq narrated to us with his isnad, except that he said, "I think it is from the Prophet ﷺ," expressing it with this doubt. This corroboration, although daif because of the doubt, still strengthens Jareer bin Hazim's raising of the hadith.Zaylai graded it hasan, and he quoted from Nawawi in Khulasa that he said, "It is a sahih or hasan hadith, and the daif status of Harith does not harm it, since Asim corroborates him."Abdul-Haqq said in his Ahkam, "This is a hadith narrated by Ibn Wahb, from Jareer bin Hazim, from Abu Ishaq, from Asim and Harith, from Ali. Abu Ishaq paired Asim with Harith, who is a liar, and this sort of thing is permissible for many shaykhs, namely that Harith attributed it fully while Asim did not attribute it fully, so Jareer combined the two and merged one's hadith into the other's. Every trustworthy narrator narrated it as stopped at the companion, so if Jareer had attributed it from Asim and made that clear, we would have accepted it from him." Others said, "This is not necessary, because Jareer is trustworthy, and he did attribute it fully from both of them." End of quote from Nasb Raya (2/328-329).The letter of Ali concerning the Prophet's command ﷺ regarding charity has indeed been established, as Bukhari related (3112) from Ibn Hanafiya, who said, "My father sent me and said, 'Take this letter and go with it to Uthman, for in it is the Prophet's command ﷺ regarding charity.'"Bukhari narrated it as a suspended report. Humaydi said, Sufyan narrated to us, Muhammad bin Suqa narrated to us, who said, I heard Mundhir Thawri, from Ibn Hanafiya, and he mentioned it in abbreviated form.Abdul-Razzaq narrated it (6795) from Ibn Uyayna with the letter in full, and said, "What was in the letter was the same as what is in the hadith of Ali." End of quote.So among the narrators, some narrated it in full, some abbreviated it, and some divided it into separate parts, so it is not unlikely that what Abu Dawud narrated in full is sahih.It establishes that a full year must pass as a condition for the obligation of zakat, which is a matter agreed upon among Muslims, and no one of consequence has disputed it. There are other hadiths to the same effect, though they contain some discussion.Among them is the hadith of Ayesha, who said, "I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say, 'There is no zakat due on wealth until a full year has passed over it.'" Ibn Majah narrated it (1792) from Nasr bin Ali Jahdami, who said, Shujaa bin Walid narrated to us, who said, Haritha bin Muhammad narrated to us, from Amra, from Ayesha, and she related it.In it is Haritha bin Muhammad, who is Ibn Abu Rijal, with a kasra on the ra then a jim, the Ansari, whom scholars unanimously agree in declaring daif. Bayhaqi narrated it through this route (4/95) and said, "Thawri narrated it from Haritha as stopped at Ayesha, and Haritha's report cannot be relied upon."Among them also is the report from Anas, which Daraqutni narrated (1891) from the hadith of Hassan bin Siyah, from Thabit, from Anas, raised to the Prophet, "There is no zakat due on wealth until a full year has passed over it." Ibn Hibban said in Majruhin, "Hassan bin Siyah's hadith is extremely objectionable, and it is not permissible to rely on him when he narrates alone." Hafiz bin (Hajar) said in Talkhis (2/156), "Hassan bin Siyah is daif, and he narrated it alone from Thabit."Hafiz Bayhaqi (4/95), after presenting the hadith of Ali bin Abu Talib and the hadith of Ayesha, and after critiquing the hadith of Ayesha on the grounds that it came both raised and stopped, and that it contains Haritha whose report cannot be relied upon, said that reliance in this matter rests on the sahih reports on it from Abu Bakr Siddiq , Uthman bin Affan, and Abdullah bin Umar, and others .Bayhaqi also passed over it in silence, so the basis for stipulating a full year is the hadith of Ali bin Abu Talib, followed by the agreement of the companions on this matter.