Azami 4833

Imam Ahmad (25882) narrated it from Abdul-Razzaq, and it is also in his Musannaf (8324), from Thawri, from Qays bin Muslim, from Hasan bin Muhammad, from Ayesha, and he related it. Its chain is sahih. Hasan bin Muhammad is the son of Ali bin Abu Talib, and his father Muhammad is the one known as Ibn Hanafiya. Qays bin Muslim is Jadali, one of the men of the two Shaikhs.However, Imam Ahmad (24128) and Abu Yaala (4616) both narrated it from the hadith of Sufyan, from Abdul-Kareem, from Qays bin Muslim Jadali, with a chain like it. They inserted "Abdul-Kareem" between Sufyan and Qays bin Muslim, and he is Ibn Abu Makhariq, who is daif. Abdul-Razzaq (8325) also narrated it from Mamar, from Abdul-Kareem, with the same wording. This is a strong corroboration favoring Sufyan's narration from Abdul-Kareem. However, it may be said that perhaps Sufyan first heard it from Abdul-Kareem, from Qays bin Muslim, and then later had the opportunity to hear it directly from Qays bin Muslim, while Mamar did not have that opportunity. In that case both would be preserved narrations, except that the first is sahih and the second is daif.Haythami, in Majmaa (3/230), graded the men of Ahmad's chain sahih, but not the men of Abu Yaala's chain.As for his saying "washiqa of a gazelle," a washiqa is meat that is taken and boiled slightly, then carried on journeys. Perhaps the Prophet ﷺ did not eat it because it was game hunted for him.On this subject, there is also what was narrated from Jabir bin Abdullah, who said, I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say, "Land game is lawful for you as long as you have not hunted it yourselves, or it was not hunted for you." Abu Dawud (1851), Tirmidhi (846), and Nasai (2827) all narrated it from Qutayba bin Saeed, who said, Yaqub, the Alexandrian Quran reciter, narrated to us from Amr, from Muttalib, from Jabir, and he related it. Tirmidhi said, "We do not know of Muttalib having heard directly from Jabir." Nasai said, "Amr bin Abu Amr is not strong in hadith, though Malik did narrate from him."I say, from this same route it was also narrated by Imam Ahmad (14894) and Abdul-Razzaq (8349), and Ibn Khuzayma (2641) graded it sahih, as did Ibn Hibban (3971), and Hakim (1/452, 476), who said, "Sahih according to the criteria of the two Shaikhs." This is an error on his part, for Muttalib, who is Ibn Abdullah bin Hantab, was not included by either of the two Shaikhs in his Sahih. Bukhari said of this Muttalib, "I do not know of him having heard directly from any of the companions." Abdul-Rahman bin Abu Hatim said, "I heard my father say, 'Muttalib bin Abdullah bin Hantab, most of his hadiths are mursal. He did not meet any of the companions of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ except Sahl bin Saad, Anas, and Salama bin Akwa, and those close to them in time. He did not hear from Jabir, nor from Zayd bin Thabit, nor from Imran bin Husayn.'" See "Marasil."Ibn Hazm, in Al-Muhalla (7/253), graded this hadith daif because of Amr bin Abu Amr, saying, "This is a discarded report because of him."I say, regarding Amr bin Abu Amr, Nasai's statement that he is not strong has already been mentioned. Yahya bin Main said, "His hadith is not to be relied upon as evidence," and on another occasion said, "He is not strong, and is not a proof." Abu Dawud said, "He is not strong." Ibn Qattan, in Al-Wahm wal-Iham (4/184), said, "He is considered weak, and his hadiths indicate his condition." However, Ahmad said, "There is no harm in him." Ajli said, "He is trustworthy." Ibn Adi said, "There is no harm in him."The conclusion is that he is "truthful but has errors," and his hadith is hasan when he does not err, and nothing has come in his hadith that is objected to. Perhaps this hadith is among those in which he erred, since there is nothing among the sahih hadiths indicating what he related.This hadith has other routes which I have mentioned in Minna Kubra (4/100–103). Because of the existence of these other routes, Bayhaqi (5/190) strengthened this hadith. Shafii said, "This is the best hadith narrated on this subject, and the most analogically sound." I say, and this was also the position of Malik, Shafii, Ahmad, and the majority of the early scholars.Abu Hanifa and a group of the early scholars said that it is permissible for one in the state of ihram to eat the meat of game absolutely, as long as he himself did not hunt it, relying on the hadith of Abu Qatada. Another group of people held that the meat of game is forbidden to those in ihram in every case, citing the words of Allah Most High, "Land game is forbidden to you while you are in the state of ihram" [Maidah 5:96]. This was the position of Ali, Ibn Abbas, Ibn Umar, Muaz, and others, as Abdul-Razzaq related from them in the Musannaf (4/425). They also relied on the hadith of Saab bin Jathama Laythi, "We are in the state of ihram, we do not eat game."The majority reconciled the hadiths of rejection and acceptance by saying, the hadiths of acceptance apply to what a person not in ihram hunts for himself and then gives some of it as a gift to one in ihram, while the hadiths of rejection apply to what a person not in ihram hunts specifically for the sake of the one in ihram, so that no hadith need be discarded. This is also the view favored by Ibn Qayyim in his Zad (2/165). And Allah Most High knows best.