Azami 6565

It has several routes of transmission, including what Abu Dawud (2193), Ibn Majah (2046), Daraqutni (4/36), Hakim (2/198), and Bayhaqi (7/357) all narrated from the hadith of Muhammad bin Ishaq, who said, Thawr bin Yazid Kalai told me, and he was trustworthy, from Muhammad bin Ubayd bin Abu Salih Makki, who said, I performed hajj with Adi bin Adi Kindi, and he sent me to Safiya bint Shayba bin Uthman, the custodian of the Kaaba, to ask her about things she had heard from Ayesha regarding the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. Among what she told me was that she heard Ayesha say, and then he related the hadith.Its chain of transmission is daif because of Muhammad bin Ubayd bin Abu Salih Makki. Hakim said, "Sahih according to the criterion of Muslim." Dhahabi took issue with this, saying, So he said, but Muslim did not rely on Muhammad bin Ubayd as evidence. Abu Hatim said, Daif. Munziri criticized it on this basis in Mukhtasar Abu Dawud, as did Ibn Hajar in Talkhis (3/210).Another route is what Hakim said, "Abu Safwan Umawi corroborated Muhammad bin Ishaq in his narration from Thawr bin Yazid, but he omitted Muhammad bin Ubayd from the chain." He then narrated it through the route of Naeem bin Hammad, who said, Abu Safwan told us. I say, in this case the chain goes back to Muhammad bin Ubayd. Dhahabi said in Talkhis, "Naeem is a narrator of unreliable reports." I say, Muhammad bin Ishaq was known to conceal weaknesses in his chains of transmission, but he stated the chain explicitly in some of his routes, and he was also corroborated by others.Another route is what Ataf bin Khalid narrated, saying, Muhammad bin Ubayd told me, from Ataa, from Ayesha. Ibn Abu Hatim mentioned it in Ilal (1/430) and said, I asked my father, Which of the two is correct, and he said, "The hadith of Safiya is more likely."Another route is what Daraqutni (4/36) and Bayhaqi narrated through Qazaa bin Suwayd, from Zakariya bin Ishaq and Muhammad bin Uthman, both from Safiya bint Shayba, from Ayesha, who said, The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, "There is no divorce and no manumission under duress." Qazaa bin Suwayd is daif, as stated in Taqrib.Taking all these routes together, the hadith is hasan, for among what is hasan is that which is narrated through more than one route with no accused narrator in any of them.As for the word translated as duress, they explained it as coercion, because the coerced person finds his affairs and his choices shut off from him. Some said it means it is as if the door is shut on him, he is imprisoned, and pressured until he divorces. Others said duress here means anger. Still others said its meaning is a prohibition against pronouncing a triple divorce all at once, leaving nothing of it unspoken, but rather that one should divorce in accordance with the sunnah as commanded. Munziri mentioned this in Mukhtasar Abu Dawud.Khattabi said, "The meaning of duress is coercion." Umar bin Khattab, Ali bin Abu Talib, Ibn Umar, and Ibn Abbas did not consider the divorce of a coerced person to be valid. This was also the view of Shurayh, Ataa, Jabir bin Zayd, Hasan, Umar bin Abdul-Aziz, Qasim, and Salim. Malik bin Anas, Uzai, Shafii, Ahmad bin Hanbal, and Ishaq bin Rahawayh held this same view. Shaybi, Nakhai, Zuhri, and Qatada considered the divorce of a coerced person to be valid. This was also the view of the people of legal reasoning. They held that the sale made by a coerced person was not valid. End of quote.As for interpreting it as anger, it was said that if that were the case, no one's divorce would ever take effect, since no one divorces except when angry. The correct interpretation is coercion and constraint, and Abu Ubayd, Ibn Qutayba, Ibn Sayyid, and others also explained it this way.