Azami 6597

Tabarani related it in Awsat - Majma Bahrayn (2367), and Hakim (2/199) - and Bayhaqi related it from him (7/208) - via the route of Abu Ghassan Muhammad bin Mutarrif, from Umar bin Nafi, from his father, who said, then he mentioned it. Its chain is sahih. Hakim said, "Sahih according to the standard of the two Shaykhs." Similar in meaning is what was reported from Ibn Abbas, who said, "The Messenger of Allah ﷺ cursed the muhallil and the one for whom the tahleel is done." Ibn Majah related it (1934) from Muhammad bin Bashshar, who said, Abu Amir narrated to us, from Zama bin Salih, from Salama bin Wahram, from Ikrima, from Ibn Abbas, then he mentioned it. Zama bin Salih is daif by the agreement of the people of knowledge. He was declared daif by Imam Ahmad, Ibn Main, Abu Dawud, Abu Hatim, Nasai, and others. Ibn Hibban said, "He was a righteous man who made mistakes without realizing it, and erred without understanding, until the anomalous reports he transmitted from well-known narrators came to dominate his hadith." Busiri also faulted the hadith on this basis. As for his teacher Salama bin Wahram, there is disagreement about him, though his hadith is hasan.As for what was reported from Ali, who said, "The Messenger of Allah ﷺ cursed ten, the consumer of riba, the one who pays it, the one who records it, its two witnesses, the muhallil and the one for whom the tahleel is done, the one who withholds charity, the woman who tattoos and the woman who is tattooed," it is daif. See its sourcing in the book on transactions. Likewise, the hadith of Jabir is not sound. Tirmidhi said, "The hadith of Ali and Jabir is a defective hadith. It was related in this manner by Ashath bin Abdul-Rahman, from Mujalid, from Amir Shaybi, from Harith, from Ali, and Amir also related it from Jabir bin Abdullah, from the Prophet ﷺ. This hadith's chain is not solid, because Mujalid bin Saeed has been declared daif by some of the people of knowledge, among them Ahmad bin Hanbal. Abdullah bin Numayr related this hadith from Mujalid, from Amir, from Jabir bin Abdullah, from Ali. Ibn Numayr erred in this, and the first version is more sound. It was also related by Mughira, Ibn Abu Khalid, and more than one other from Shaybi, from Harith, from Ali." End of quote.I say, as for the hadith of Ali bin Abu Talib, it was related by Abu Dawud (2076), Tirmidhi (1119), Nasai (8/147), Ibn Majah (1935), and Ahmad (635), all of them from Shaybi, from Harith, from Ali, and he mentioned the hadith, some of them mentioning it at length and others in brief. Harith is Aawar, and he is daif by the agreement of the people of knowledge.As for the wording, "the muhallil" is from ihlal (making permissible), and "the one for whom the tahleel is done" is from tahleel, and the two carry the same meaning. For this reason it has also been reported as "muhill" and "the one for whom the muhill acts," with a single doubled lam, and as "muhallil" and "the one for whom the muhallil acts," with two lams, the first of them doubled. The muhallil is the one who marries a woman thrice-divorced by another man so that she becomes lawful for the first husband again, and "the one for whom the tahleel is done" is the original divorcing husband. He was cursed because he tore away decency, showed a lack of self-respect, and revealed baseness of character, and this is obvious with regard to the one for whom the tahleel is done. As for the muhallil, he is like a stud animal that lends itself out for intercourse for the purpose of another. Calling him a muhallil is clear according to those who hold that his marriage is valid, and it also applies according to those who do not hold this, because he intended the tahleel even though it does not actually make her lawful. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best. So said Sindi.