Azami 4720

Ibn Jareer reported it in his tafsir (21/9), saying, Muthanna narrated to me, he said, Abdullah bin Salih narrated to us, he said, Muawiya bin Salih narrated to me, he said, Ali bin Abu Talha narrated to us, from Ibn Abbas, and he mentioned it. Hafiz bin Kathir also mentioned it in his tafsir, quoting from Ibn Jareer, without commenting on it in any way. In it is Muthanna, who is Ibn Ibrahim Amuli, from whom Ibn Jareer narrates frequently in his tafsir and history, and no criticism or endorsement of him is known.Its chain is hasan on account of Abdullah bin Salih, known as the scribe of Layth, about whom there is disagreement, though his hadith is hasan in corroborating and supporting narrations. Ali bin Abu Talha narrates the tafsir from Ibn Abbas, but he did not hear it directly from him. However, the intermediary is known, being Mujahid bin Jabr, and that is why most commentators relied heavily on transmitting his narration from him and judged it sahih.As for what is narrated from Ali bin Abu Talib, who said, When "pilgrimage to the House is a duty owed to Allah by whoever is able to make his way there" [Al Imran 3:97] was revealed, they said, "O Messenger of Allah, is it every year?" He remained silent, so they said again, "O Messenger of Allah, is it every year?" He said, "No, and had I said yes, it would have become obligatory." Then Allah sent down "O you who believe, do not ask about things which, if made clear to you, would bring you trouble", this contains a break in the chain.Tirmidhi (814, 3055) and Ibn Majah (2884) both reported it through the hadith of Mansur bin Wardan, from Ali bin Abdul-Ala, from his father, from Abu Bakhtari, from Ali bin Abu Talib, who mentioned it. Through this same route, Imam Ahmad (905) also reported it, as did Ibn Abu Hatim in his tafsir (6875), and Hakim in Mustadrak (2/293–294), though Hakim did not pass judgment on it, saying only, "The proper place for these three hadiths, meaning the hadith of Ibn Abbas and the hadith of Ali, would have been in the opening of the Book of the Rites, but I was not able to arrange that, so I have included them in the tafsir of the verse."Tirmidhi said in both places, "Hasan gharib." I say, it is not hasan, for it contains the father of Ali bin Abdul-Ala, namely Abdul-Ala bin Amir Thalabi, who is daif, and Dhahabi criticized it on this basis in Talkhis Mustadrak, saying, "Ahmad judged him daif." Moreover, it is also disconnected, for Abu Bakhtari, who is Saeed bin Abu Imran, also known as Saeed bin Fayruz, never met Ali bin Abu Talib, as Bukhari stated in Ilal al-Kabir of Tirmidhi (2/964).As for Hafiz bin Kathir, he quoted in his tafsir the statement of Tirmidhi that it is "gharib from this route, and I heard Bukhari say, Abu Bakhtari never met Ali." He was content to judge the hadith as merely "gharib," and this is also how it appears in Tuhfat Ashraf of Mizzi (7/378), and this is the more fitting judgment, for a disconnected hadith should not be judged hasan. However, Tirmidhi did not mention Bukhari's statement in his Sunan, but only mentioned it in his Ilal. Is this then another instance where the manuscripts of Tirmidhi's Sunan differ, or did both of them take the judgment from the Ilal and mention it alongside the Sunan? Allah knows best.Something similar was narrated in the tafsir of this same verse in Surah Maidah, from Abu Hurairah. Ibn Jareer reported it (18/9), and it contains Ibrahim bin Muslim Hijri, who is daif, judged daif by the majority of scholars, and Hafiz bin Kathir also pointed this out in his tafsir.On this subject there is also what is narrated from Abu Saeed Khudri, that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, Allah Almighty said, "A servant whose body I have kept sound, and for whom I have made provision abundant, if five years pass over him and he does not come to Me, he is deprived." This contains inconsistency. Abu Yaala (1031), Ibn Hibban (3703), and Bayhaqi (5/262) all reported it through the route of Khalaf bin Khalifa, who said, Ala bin Musayab narrated to us, from his father, from Abu Saeed Khudri, and he mentioned it, the wording being that of Ibn Hibban. Bayhaqi's wording is the same. However, Abu Yaala did not mention that it is one of the divine sayings.Beyond this, the chain contains two flaws. The first is Khalaf bin Khalifa, who is Ashjai, their freedman, Abu Ahmad Wasiti. He was in Kufa, then moved to Wasit and settled there for a time, then moved on to Baghdad, where he remained until his death in the year 187. However, he became confused in his mind toward the end of his life, as Ahmad said, "I saw Khalaf bin Khalifa when he was paralyzed in the year one hundred and eighty-seven, being carried about, and he could not understand. So whoever wrote down from him in earlier times, his hearing is sound." Ahmad also said, "I went to him but could not understand him." Even apart from his confusion in old age, he was not regarded favorably by some of the scholars. Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Hanbal said, I heard my father say, A man said to Sufyan bin Uyayna, "O Abu Muhammad, we have a man called Khalaf bin Khalifa who claims he saw Amr bin Hurayth." Sufyan said, "He lied. Perhaps he saw Jafar bin Amr bin Hurayth."However, Thawri corroborated him, narrating from Ala bin Musayab, from his father, or from a man, from Abu Saeed. Abdul-Razzaq reported it in his Musannaf (8826), and in it, "The Lord Almighty says," without mentioning the Prophet ﷺ.The second flaw is the break between Musayab bin Rafi and Abu Saeed Khudri. Yahya bin Main said, "He did not hear from any of the companions of the Prophet ﷺ except from Bara bin Azib and Abu Amir bin Abda." I say, he died in the year 105 AH. Despite all of this, inconsistency occurs in it, as Daraqutni mentioned in his Ilal (11/309), where he said at the end, "None of it is sound." Bayhaqi also pointed to this inconsistency, saying, "It has been reported as stopping with the companion, and it has been reported as disconnected, and it has been narrated by another route from Abu Hurairah, but its chain is daif."I say, regarding the hadith of Abu Hurairah, Bukhari said about it, "Walid said, Sadaqa narrated to us, from Ala, from his father, from Abu Hurairah, from the Prophet ﷺ, concerning Hajj, it is munkar." Tarikh al-Kabir (4/295). Ibn Adi likewise quoted this in Kamil (4/1396), saying, "I do not know of anyone who narrates it from Ala except Sadaqa, and this is only narrated from Khalaf bin Khalifa, and this is well known, and it is also narrated from Thawri, from Ala bin Musayab, from his father, from Abu Saeed Khudri, from the Prophet ﷺ. Perhaps Sadaqa heard the name Ala mentioned and assumed it was Ala bin Abdul-Rahman, from his father, from Abu Hurairah, since this route was easier for him, whereas it is actually Ala bin Musayab, from his father, from Abu Saeed."Abu Hatim and Abu Zura also identified a flaw in this hadith, as Abdul-Rahman bin Abu Hatim relates, I asked my father and Abu Zura about a hadith narrated by Sadaqa bin Yazid Khurasani, resident of Ramla, from Ala bin Abdul-Rahman, from his father, from Abu Hurairah, from the Prophet ﷺ, who said, Allah Almighty said, "Whoever I have kept sound and for whom I have made provision abundant, if he does not visit Me once every five years, he is deprived." They both said, "This, in our view, is munkar as a hadith of Ala bin Abdul-Rahman, and it more closely resembles a hadith of Ala bin Musayab." My father said, "People are inconsistent regarding the hadith of Ala bin Musayab. As for Khalaf bin Khalifa, he said, from Ala bin Musayab, from his father, from Abu Hurairah, stopping with the companion. But others reported it saying, from Ala bin Musayab, from his father, from Abu Hurairah, from the Prophet ﷺ." I said to my father, "Which of the two is correct?" He said, "It is inconsistent." I pressed him further, but he added nothing beyond saying, "It is inconsistent." Then he said, "Ala bin Musayab, from Yunus bin Habbab, from Abu Saeed, stopping with the companion and disconnected, is more likely correct." I said to my father, "Did Yunus not hear from Abu Saeed?" He said, "No." Abu Zura said, "Some have said, Ala bin Musayab, from Yunus bin Habbab, from Abu Saeed, stopping with the companion." He also said, "The correct version is, from Ala bin Musayab, from his father, from Abu Saeed, from the Prophet ﷺ." End of quote, Ilal (1/290–291).As for this Sadaqa bin Yazid, Ibn Hibban said of him, "He was among those who narrated astonishing and problematic things from trustworthy narrators despite the scarcity of his narrations, and it is not permissible to rely on his hadith when using it as evidence." Majruhin (491).I say, this hadith also contradicts what scholars have agreed upon, namely that Hajj is obligatory only once in a lifetime. The Prophet ﷺ warned against this very notion in the hadith of Abu Hurairah, when a man said to him, "Every year, O Messenger of Allah?" He remained silent until the man had said it three times, then the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, "Had I said yes, it would have become obligatory, and you would not have been able to fulfill it." So how, then, could someone who has not performed Hajj every five years be considered deprived, that is, deprived of Allah's mercy? Reflect on this.Some scholars have judged this hadith to be fabricated and false, impermissible to narrate. Ibn Arabi said in his commentary on the Muwatta, "It is a false hadith, and consensus stands squarely against it." See Qabas (2/539).