Azami 5477

Shafii narrated it in his Musnad (1203). He said, "Someone I do not suspect informed me, from Ibn Abu Dhib, from Makhlad bin Khaffaf, who said, 'I bought a slave and used his services, then I discovered a defect in him. I disputed about it before Umar bin Abdul-Aziz, who ruled that the slave be returned to me and that I return the profit I had gained from him. I went to Urwa and told him what happened. He said, "I will go to him this evening and inform him that Ayesha told me that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ ruled in a similar case that the profit goes with the liability." So I hurried to Umar and told him what Urwa had told me, from Ayesha, from the Prophet ﷺ. Umar bin Abdul-Aziz said, "Nothing could be easier for me than reversing a ruling I made. Allah knows I intended nothing by it except the truth, but a sunnah from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ has now reached me concerning it, so I will reverse the ruling of Umar and carry out the sunnah of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ." Urwa then went to him, and he ruled that I should keep the profit that he had previously ruled against me.'"Abu Dawud (3508), Nasai (4502), Tirmidhi (1285), and Ibn Majah (2442) also narrated it, and Ibn Hibban (4928) and Hakim (2/15) both graded it sahih, all of them transmitting from the hadith of Ibn Abu Dhib with his chain, except that they did not mention the story. Tirmidhi said, "Hasan sahih. This hadith has also been narrated from a route other than this one." This is what he said in his Sunan. And in Ilal al-Kabir (1/513) he said, "I asked Bukhari about this hadith, and he said, 'I do not know of any other hadith from Makhlad bin Khattaf besides this one, and this is a munkar hadith.'" End of quote. However, Tirmidhi did not accept Bukhari's statement.The hadith has another route, as Tirmidhi indicated, which is what he narrated in his Sunan (1286), and Bayhaqi (5/322), from the route of Umar bin Ali Muqaddami, from Hisham bin Urwa, from his father, from Ayesha, and he mentioned it in the same way. Tirmidhi said, "This is a hasan sahih gharib hadith from the hadith of Hisham bin Urwa." He also said, "Muslim bin Khalid Zanji also narrated this hadith from Hisham bin Urwa, and Jareer also narrated it from Hisham. But regarding Jareer's hadith, it is said that Jareer engaged in tadlis in it, and did not hear it directly from Hisham bin Urwa." End of quote.I say, the hadith of Muslim bin Khalid Zanji was recorded by Abu Dawud (3510), Ibn Majah (2243), Hakim (2/15), Baghawi (8/162), and Ibn Jarud (626), except that Abu Dawud said, "This chain is not up to standard." Hakim said, "Sahih in chain." Tirmidhi asked Bukhari about this chain, and Bukhari said, "It was only narrated by Muslim bin Khalid Zanji, and Muslim's hadith is worthless." I said to him, "But Umar bin Ali also narrated it, from Hisham bin Urwa." He did not recognize it from the hadith of Umar bin Ali. I said to him, "Do you think Umar bin Ali engaged in tadlis in it?" Muhammad said, "I do not know that Umar bin Ali practices tadlis." I said to him, "Jareer also narrated it, from Hisham bin Urwa." He said that Muhammad bin Humayd said, "Jareer narrated this hadith during a debate, and it is not known whether he actually heard it from him." He also said that Muhammad weakened the hadith of Hisham bin Urwa. End of quote.However, Tirmidhi was not satisfied with Bukhari's statement, so he graded it hasan. Baghawi likewise graded it hasan, while Shafii, Ibn Hibban, Hakim, and Dhahabi graded it sahih. Munziri said, "Its chain is good." In conclusion, this hadith is hasan by the combination of its chains, for this is the way hasan hadiths are established. In Talkhis Habir (3/22) it is noted that Ibn Qattan graded it sahih.The meaning of the hadith is that when the item sold is something that produces income and yield, the owner of the underlying property, who bears liability for the asset itself, is entitled to the profit in exchange for bearing that liability. So if a man buys land and cultivates it, or livestock and it produces offspring, or a mount and he rides it, or a slave and he employs him, and then finds a defect in it, he may return the item itself without owing anything for what he benefited from it. This is because had it been destroyed during the period between the contract and its dissolution, the loss would have fallen on the buyer, so it follows that the profit should belong to him as well. This explanation comes from Khattabi.This hadith was widely discussed among the jurists, and the majority of scholars adopted its apparent meaning, though they differed over its details, just as they differed over which types of sold items may be returned for a defect and which may not. See what Khattabi and Baghawi have written on this.