Azami 5894

Recorded by Hakim (2/35) and Bayhaqi (5/296), both from the hadith of Ibrahim bin Tahman, from Hajjaj bin Hajjaj Bahili, from Qatada, from Hasan, from Samura bin Jundab, who said, then he related it. Hakim said, "This hadith has a sahih chain, its narrators are all trustworthy memorizers to the last one, though the two of them (Bukhari and Muslim) did not include it, and Bukhari did rely on Hasan's narration from Samura." End of quote.I say, there is disagreement about whether Hasan actually heard from Samura, and the correct view is that he heard from him without restriction. That is why Bayhaqi said, "This is a sahih chain. Whoever affirms that Hasan Basri heard from Samura bin Jundab counts it as connected, and whoever does not affirm that considers it a good mursal, to be joined with the mursal of Saeed bin Musayab, and that of Qasim bin Abu Bazza, and the statement of Abu Bakr Siddiq." End of quote.The mursal of Saeed bin Musayab is what Malik recorded (2/655) from Zayd bin Aslam, from Saeed bin Musayab, that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ forbade selling a live animal in exchange for meat. Malik also recorded it from Abu Zinad, from Saeed bin Musayab, as his own statement. Bayhaqi (5/297) recorded it through Malik's route as well. Ibn Abdul-Barr said, "I do not know this hadith to be connected through any established route back to the Prophet ﷺ." Bayhaqi likewise said, "This is what is correct. Yazid bin Marwan Khallal narrated it from Malik, from Zuhri, from Sahl bin Saad, from the Prophet ﷺ, but he erred in it."The hadith of Yazid bin Marwan was recorded by Ibn Abdul-Barr, Daraqutni, Abu Naeem, and others. Ibn Abdul-Barr said, "This chain is fabricated, it is not sound as coming from Malik, and it has no basis in his hadith." This Yazid bin Marwan is a liar, as Ibn Main said.As for the mursal of Qasim bin Abu Bazza, Bayhaqi recorded it (5/296–297) through the route of Shafii, who said, Muslim informed us, from Ibn Jurayj, from Qasim bin Abu Bazza, who said, I came to Madinah and found a slaughtered camel that had been divided into four parts, each part being sold for the price of a young goat. I wanted to buy a portion of it, but a man from the people of Madinah said to me, "The Messenger of Allah ﷺ forbade selling something living in exchange for something dead." He said, so I asked about that man, and I was told good things about him.Muslim here is Ibn Khalid Zanji, about whom there is disagreement. Ibn Madini criticized him, while Ibn Main and Daraqutni deemed him trustworthy, and Ibn Adi said, his hadith is hasan, there is no harm in him. Ibn Hibban listed him among the trustworthy narrators. Qasim bin Abu Bazza never met any of the companions, so the unnamed narrator is one of the successors, which makes the hadith mursal, as Bayhaqi said.The majority relied on these hadiths, supported by the statements of the companions, and thus forbade selling meat in exchange for a live animal, since what is meant by "animal" here is one purchased and sold for the sake of its meat. The reason for the prohibition would then be disparity within a single category, which is riba of excess. Abu Hanifa, however, permitted selling meat for a live animal, because in his view the cause of riba is measurement by volume or weight, and an animal is neither measured by volume nor weighed, so selling meat for an animal was permissible.I say, perhaps this hadith and the statements of the companions never reached him, for otherwise Abu Hanifa, may Allah have mercy on him, repeatedly and explicitly said, "If the hadith is sahih, then strike my opinion against the wall."Legal understanding of the hadith, the following can be drawn from the preceding chapters,The prohibition of selling an animal for an animal, or for two animals, on a deferred basis. This is the view of Ahmad, the scholars of Kufa, Sufyan Thawri, and others, who cite the hadith of Samura as their evidence. Tahawi considered the hadith of Samura to abrogate the hadith of Abdullah bin Amr. Shafii and Ishaq held that it is permissible, whether the category is the same or different, whether the meat is edible or not, and whether one animal is sold for one or for two or more, citing the hadith of Abdullah bin Amr as their evidence. They interpreted the hadith of Samura as applying only when the sale is deferred on both sides, which is what is called "selling debt for debt." Malik said, "If the category differs, it is permissible even if the amounts are unequal."A group of scholars also used the hadith of Abdullah bin Amr as evidence for the permissibility of forward purchase (salam) in animals, whether of a single category or of different, clearly described categories.