Azami 5418

Tabarani related it in al-Awsat (2161) from Ahmad (bin Zuhayr), from Hasan bin Arafah, who said, Qudama bin Shihab Mazini told us, Ismail bin Abu Khalid told us, from Wabara bin Abdul-Rahman, from Ibn Umar, and he related it.Tabarani said, "No one related this hadith from Ismail except Qudama, and Hasan bin Arafah related it alone." I say, Hasan bin Arafah is hasan al-hadith. Ibn Main deemed him trustworthy, and Nasai and Daraqutni said there is no harm in him. Ibn Hibban mentioned him among the trustworthy narrators in his book (8/179).Munziri mentioned this hadith in Targhib wal-Tarhib (2725), and after attributing it to Tabarani in al-Kabir and al-Awsat, said, "Its narrators are trustworthy." His saying, "a blessed sale," means a sale untainted by sin, false oaths, or anything similar to that.As for what is reported from Rafi bin Khadij, who said, It was asked, "O Messenger of Allah, which earning is best?" He said, "A man's work with his hands, and every blessed sale." Errors occurred in this narration. Ahmad related it (17265) from Yazid, Masudi told us, from Waail Abu Bakr, from Abaya bin Rifaa bin Rafi bin Khadij, from his grandfather Rafi bin Khadij, who related it. Masudi is Abdul-Rahman bin Abdullah bin Utba, and from his path Hakim related it (2/10).Masudi erred in this, because his memory became confused later in life, so he made the chain connected. The correct version, from those who related it from Waail, is from Saeed bin Umayr, from the Prophet ﷺ, as a mursal narration, as Bayhaqi said.Sharik related it from Waail, from Jami bin Umayr, from his maternal uncle, who said, The Prophet ﷺ was asked, and he related it likewise. Ahmad related it (15836), and Hakim, and from him Bayhaqi (5/263), all of them through the hadith of Aswad, from Amir, who said, Sharik told us with his chain. Jami bin Umayr's maternal uncle is Abu Burda.Bayhaqi said, "This is how Sharik bin Abdullah Qadi related it, and he erred in two places. One is in his saying 'Jami bin Umayr,' when it is actually Saeed bin Umayr. The other is in making it connected, when others related it from Waail as mursal." And he said in Shuab al-Iman (1228), from Saeed bin Umayr as mursal. This is what is preserved, and whoever said "from his uncle" erred.I say, the hadith of Saeed bin Umayr from his uncle, who is Bara bin Azib, was related by Hakim, and from him Bayhaqi, from Aswad bin Amir, from Sufyan Thawri, from Waail bin Dawud, from Saeed bin Umayr, from his uncle, who said, The Prophet ﷺ was asked, and he related it.Hakim said, "This hadith is sahih in its chain. Waail bin Dawud and his son Bakr are both trustworthy. Yahya bin Main mentioned that Saeed bin Umayr's uncle is Bara bin Azib, and when Thawri and Sharik differ, the ruling goes to Thawri." That is the end of his statement.No one doubts that Thawri takes precedence over Sharik, but there is also disagreement about Thawri himself. Aswad bin Amir related it from him as connected, while others related it from him as mursal, as Bayhaqi said. Bukhari confirmed this in Tarikh al-Kabir (3/502) by saying, "Some connected it, and that is an error" (meaning that the correct version is that it is mursal). Likewise, Abu Hatim said that the trustworthy narrators, Thawri and his group, related it from Waail bin Dawud, from Saeed bin Umayr, from the Prophet ﷺ, and said, "The mursal version is more likely." Ilal (2/443). See further Minna Kubra (5/7, 9).As for Saeed bin Umayr's uncle, he is Bara bin Azib, as Yahya said. Others said he is Abu Burda bin Niyar, but this disagreement does not cause harm, since companionship with the Prophet is established for both of them.Jami bin Umayr is daif. Bukhari said of him, "There is something questionable about him." Ibn Hibban said, "He was a Rafidi who fabricated hadiths." However, Ajli deemed him trustworthy.Saeed bin Umayr bin Niyar, with the noon vowelled with a kasra, was not deemed trustworthy by anyone except Ibn Hibban, and so the Hafiz said, "Acceptable," meaning when corroborated, and I did not find any corroboration for him, so his hadith is lenient in reliability.The conclusion is that this hadith is not free from confusion in its chain and weakness in its narrators. As for Haythami's statement in al-Majma (4/60), "It contains Masudi, who is trustworthy, though his memory became confused, and the rest of Ahmad's narrators are the narrators of the sahih collections," this is not correct.As for what is reported from Abu Hurairah as a raised hadith, "The most deceitful people are the dyers and the goldsmiths," it is extremely daif. Ibn Majah related it (2152), and Ahmad (7920), and Bayhaqi (10/249), and Ibn Hibban in al-Majruhin (859), all of them through the path of Hammam bin Yahya, from Farqad, from Yazid bin Abdullah bin Shikhir, from Abu Hurairah, who related it.Its chain is daif because of Farqad, who is Ibn Yaqub Sabakhi, about whom there is disagreement. Darimi deemed him trustworthy, and Ibn Main said, "There is no harm in him." But the majority of scholars deemed him daif and said his hadiths are objectionable.Ibn Hibban said, "He had a heedlessness and poor memory, and he would make mistakes in what he related. He would raise mursal narrations without realizing it, and he would connect stopped narrations without understanding what he was doing. When this became frequent from him, and his contradiction of the trustworthy narrators became excessive, relying on him became invalid."He has chains even worse than this one, which Ibn Hibban mentioned in al-Majruhin, and Ibn Adi in al-Kamil, and Ibn Jawzi in Ilal Mutanahiya, and Dhahabi in al-Mizan, and Ibn Abu Hatim in al-Ilal, and others.