Azami 4719

Tabarani narrated it in Al-Kabir (8/186-187), and Ibn Jareer in his Tafsir (9/19), both from the hadith of Abu Zayd Abdul-Rahman bin Abu Ghamr, who said, "Abu Mutee Muawiya bin Yahya narrated to us, from Safwan bin Amr, who said, Salim bin Amir narrated to me, who said, I heard Abu Umama Bahili say..." then he mentioned the hadith, and the wording given here is Ibn Jareer's. Its chain is hasan, good, as Hafiz Haythami said in Majma (3/204).I say, this is as he said, on account of Abu Mutee Muawiya bin Yahya, who is Atrabulsi, the Levantine, the Damascene, for he is truthful (sadooq), as attested by Ibn Main, Duhaym, Abu Dawud, and Nasai. Abdul-Rahman bin Abu Hatim said, I asked my father and Abu Zura about Abu Mutee Muawiya bin Yahya. They both said, "He is truthful, his hadith is sound." And Abu Zura said, "He is trustworthy." Abu Saeed bin Yunus said, "Muawiya bin Yahya Atrabulsi, whose kunya is Abu Mutee, came to Egypt, and people wrote down narrations from him. He is different from Muawiya bin Yahya Sadafi, who was in charge of the treasury in Rayy, and who narrated from Zuhri."I say, this is as he said, for Muawiya bin Yahya Sadafi, whose kunya is Abu Rawh, the Levantine, the Damascene, who was in charge of the treasury in Rayy on behalf of Mahdi, is different from Muawiya bin Yahya Atrabulsi, whose kunya is Abu Mutee. This Sadafi is daif. He was declared daif by Ibn Main, Abu Dawud, Nasai, Juzjani, and others.Abu Hatim said, "His hadith is daif, there is something objectionable in his hadith. Hiqal bin Ziyad narrated from him sound narrations that seem to come from a book, while Isa bin Yunus and Ishaq bin Sulayman narrated from him objectionable narrations that seem to come from his memory." And Bukhari said, "His narrations from Zuhri are sound, coming from a book, but Isa bin Yunus and Ishaq bin Sulayman narrated from him objectionable narrations that seem to come from his memory."Once we know the difference between Muawiya bin Yahya Atrabulsi and Muawiya bin Yahya Sadafi, namely that the first has hasan hadith while the second is daif, then know that Hafiz Ibn Hibban fell into a very ugly confusion, combining the two of them in Majruheen (1022), where he said, "Muawiya bin Yahya Sadafi Atrabulsi, whose kunya is Abu Mutee, was born in Atrabulsi on the coast of Damascus. He narrated from Zuhri. He was in charge of the treasury in Rayy, to which he moved, and his kunya was Abu Rawh. Isa bin Yunus and Ishaq bin Sulayman narrated from him. He is very objectionable in hadith. He used to buy books and narrate from them, then his memory changed, so he began narrating mistakenly what he had heard from Zuhri and others. So the narration of the two narrators from him, Ishaq bin Sulayman and those like him, comes across as if inverted. But in the narration of the Levantines from him, Hiqal bin Ziyad and others, there are sound things resembling the hadith of trustworthy narrators."All of this speech concerns Sadafi, as already appeared in the words of Abu Hatim and Bukhari. So it appears that this was a slip of the pen from Ibn Hibban, who was writing the biography of Sadafi, and Atrabulsi appeared under his pen by mistake, because he said, "his kunya is Abu Mutee," and then said, "his kunya is Abu Rawh," when Sadafi's kunya is Abu Rawh.Hafiz Daraqutni pointed out this confusion that occurred from Ibn Hibban, in his comments on Majruheen (pp. 256-257), where he said, "Abu Hatim confused this matter with an ugly confusion. There are two men, each called Muawiya bin Yahya Sadafi. One's kunya is Abu Rawh, and he is the one who narrated from Zuhri what was mentioned here and other things, and he is the one who was in charge of the treasury in Rayy, and he is the one from whom Hiqal bin Ziyad, Isa bin Yunus, Ishaq bin Sulayman Razi, and others narrated. The other's kunya is Abu Mutee, and he is Atrabulsi, and he is the one who narrated the hadith of Ukkaf bin Wadaa mentioned here, and he is the one who narrated the hadith of Khalid Haddan here, and he has more objectionable narrations than Sadafi. The narration of Sadafi was only corrupted because his books were lost to him, so he narrated from his memory, while Hiqal bin Ziyad heard from him from his book, so you will not find in it error or inversion. And Allah knows best."Quoted from the comments of Dr. Muwaffaq Abdul-Qadir on Duafa wal-Matrukeen by Daraqutni, because the Indian edition of Majruheen is not in my library.But Hafiz Daraqutni himself fell into an error, for he said about Atrabulsi, "Daif," as found in Tahdheeb of Mizzi. And in Taqreeb of the Hafiz, it says, "Atrabulsi is stronger than Sadafi," the reverse of what Daraqutni said.In summary, the chain of the hadith of Abu Umama Bahili is hasan, because it comes through the narration of Muawiya bin Yahya Atrabulsi, who is "truthful, but has some errors," as stated in Taqreeb. But given this disagreement that we have mentioned, Hafiz bin Kathir said in his Tafsir, "There is weakness in its chain." It appears from this that it was not clear to him whether the narrator was Sadafi or Atrabulsi. And Allah, the Most High, knows best.