Azami 4350

Imam Ahmad narrated it (8898) from Abdul-Razzaq, and it is in his Musannaf (7601), where he said, Sufyan informed us, from Ibn Abu Layla, from Ata, from Abu Hurairah, and he related it. Ibn Abu Layla is daif due to the poor quality of his memory, and Nasai narrated it (2150) through his route, from Yahya bin Adam, from Sufyan, with his chain of transmission, in similar fashion.However, he was not alone in narrating it. Abdul-Malik bin Abu Sulayman followed him in narrating it, from Ata bin Abu Rabah, and Nasai narrated it through his route (2147). But there is disagreement regarding Abdul-Malik bin Abu Sulayman, for Mansur bin Abu Aswad narrated it from him as a raised hadith, as mentioned previously, while Yazid narrated it from him as a hadith stopped at Abu Hurairah. Nasai also narrated it through this route (2148), and indicated that Ibn Abu Layla raised it. An addition from a trustworthy narrator is accepted among the scholars of hadith.There is another chain that strengthens the raised status of the hadith, which is what Nasai narrated (2151) through the route of Muhammad bin Fudayl, who said, Yahya bin Saeed narrated to us, from Abu Salama, from Abu Hurairah, relating the same. However, Nasai said, "This chain of Yahya bin Saeed is hasan, yet the hadith is munkar, and I fear the error may be from Muhammad bin Fudayl." End of quote.I say, there is no basis for ruling it munkar after having graded its chain hasan, for Muhammad bin Fudayl, who is Ibn Ghazwan, is trustworthy. He was deemed trustworthy by senior scholars such as Ibn Main, Ibn Madini, Daraqutni, Ibn Saad, and others, and both Bukhari and Muslim narrated from him. What has preceded strengthens the raised status of his hadith, and nothing has come in his hadith that would be objected to. Allah knows best what Nasai intended by this statement of his.