Azami 5523

Bayhaqi (6/126) narrated it from the hadith of Uthman bin Saeed Darimi, who said, "Abdul-Rahman bin Yahya bin Ismail bin Ubaydullah narrated to us, Walid bin Muslim narrated to us, Saeed bin Abdul-Aziz narrated to us, from Ismail bin Ubaydullah, from Umm Darda, from Abu Darda," and he related it. Bayhaqi graded it daif, and he related from Duhaym that he said, "It has no basis." Ibn Abdul-Hadi said in Tanqih (4/186), "Samuwayh related it in his Fawaid from Abdul-Rahman. Muslim related in his Sahih a hadith from Dawud bin Rashid, from Walid bin Muslim, with this same chain, from Abu Darda, concerning fasting while traveling (1122). As for this Abdul-Rahman, Ibn Abu Hatim said, 'My father related from him, and heard from him on the first journey, and I asked him about him, and he said, "There is no harm in his hadith, he is truthful."'" End of quote. Ibn Turkmani said in Jawhar Naqi, "Bayhaqi reported it with a good chain, so I do not know the basis for its being graded daif, or for saying it has no basis."On this subject there is also what was related from Ubayy bin Kaab, who said, "I taught a man the Quran, and he gave me a bow as a gift. I mentioned that to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, and he said, 'If you take it, you will be taking a bow of fire.' So I returned it." Ibn Majah (2158) narrated it from Sahl bin Abu Sahl, who said, "Yahya bin Saeed narrated to us, from Thawr bin Yazid, who said, 'Khalid bin Madan narrated to us, who said, "Abdul-Rahman bin Salm narrated to me, from Atiya Kalai, from Ubayy bin Kaab,"'" and he related it.Bayhaqi (6/125–126) narrated it by another route, from Yahya bin Saeed with his chain, except that he omitted Khalid bin Madan between Thawr and Abdul-Rahman. In the chain is Abdul-Rahman bin Salm, who is a Syrian. Mizzi said in his Tahzib, "Thawr bin Yazid related from him, and there is much variance in the chain of his hadith." The same is found in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib. Both of them attributed his hadith to Ibn Majah. Mizzi said, "Ibn Majah related from him only this single hadith."In the printed edition of Sunan Ibn Majah edited by Fuad Abdul-Baqi, Khalid bin Madan is included. The same is found in Tuhfat Ashraf (1/35) as well. But in the edition of the Sunan edited by Dr. Muhammad Mustafa Azami, he is omitted. It appears, then, that there was a discrepancy between the old copies of Ibn Majah. In any case, Abdul-Rahman bin Salm is unknown.Also in the chain is Atiya, who is Ibn Qays Kalai. Alai mentioned in Jami Tahsil (527) that his narration from Ubayy bin Kaab and Abu Darda is mursal, as he said in Tahzib. This is what he said. But it is not mentioned in Tahzib, nor in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, that his narration from Ubayy bin Kaab and Abu Darda is mursal. Rather, in Tahzib it says, Abu Mishar said, "Atiya bin Qays was born during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, in the year seven, and he went on military campaigns during the caliphate of Muawiya, and he died in the year one hundred and ten." His son said, "My father died at the age of one hundred and four." So it is possible that he met him.Furthermore, this Atiya has been corroborated in some narrations, corroborated by Aban, from Ubayy bin Kaab. So the flaw is confined to the unknown status of Abdul-Rahman bin Salm.The jurisprudence of this chapter, the hadiths of this chapter indicate the dislike of taking payment for teaching the Quran, and this is the view held by Abu Hanifa and Ishaq. Then the scholars differed regarding some cases but not others. Some held that the dislike applies when payment is stipulated as a condition. Others held that the dislike applies when the work is done purely as an act of devotion for the sake of Allah, in which case one may not take payment for it, since payment contradicts devotion. But if one does not intend it as devotion and does not seek payment for it, then it is permissible, as in the hadith of Ibn Abbas in the previous chapter. Others said, if there is no one among the Muslims who can teach the Quran except a single person, then it becomes obligatory upon him to teach them, and he may not take payment for it, because teaching them has become a personal obligation upon him, unlike the case where others besides him are available, in which case he may take payment. As for when this payment comes from the ruler, who is responsible for the welfare of the community, then there is no dislike in that by agreement, because the ruler setting the payment helps in managing the affairs of the country, and this is what has been practiced from the time of the Rightly Guided Caliphs down to our own day.