Azami 6712

Narrated by Tirmidhi (1336), Ahmad (9023), and Ibn Jarud (585), and Ibn Hibban (5076) and Hakim (4/103) graded it sahih, all of them from the hadith of Umar bin Abu Salama, from his father, from Abu Hurairah, as mentioned. Its isnad is hasan because of Umar bin Abu Salama Zuhri, the judge of Madinah, who is disputed but whose hadith is hasan, except that he differed in it, making it part of the musnad of Abu Hurairah, while Harith bin Abdul-Rahman made it part of the musnad of Abdullah bin Amr. Tirmidhi transmitted from Abdullah bin Abdul-Rahman (who is Darimi) that he said, "The hadith of Abu Salama, from Abdullah bin Amr, from the Prophet ﷺ, is the best and most sahih thing on this subject."However, this discrepancy does not affect the soundness of the hadith of Abu Hurairah. For although Harith bin Abdul-Rahman Qurashi is in a better position than Umar bin Abu Salama, the son may well know his father's hadith better, so it is not implausible that Abu Salama himself had two teachers, Abdullah bin Amr and Abu Hurairah. This is why Tirmidhi graded the hadith of Abu Hurairah as hasan, even though he transmitted from Darimi a grading of the hadith of Abdullah bin Amr as sahih. Likewise, a group of scholars also graded it sahih, as appears from the sourcing of its hadith.On this subject there is also what was narrated from Thawban, who said, "The Messenger of Allah ﷺ cursed the briber, the bribe-taker, and the intermediary," meaning the one who goes between them. Narrated by Ahmad (22399) from Aswad bin Amir, who said, Abu Bakr, that is Ibn Ayyash, narrated to us, from Layth, from Abu Khattab, from Abu Zura, from Thawban, as mentioned.Its isnad is daif because of Layth, who is Ibn Abu Salim, for he was of poor memory, and he was inconsistent in it, presenting it in various forms. Once he said it this way, from Abu Zura from Thawban, but Abu Zura never heard from Thawban, so there is a break in it. Another time he inserted Abu Idris Khawlani between them. A third time, from Abu Khattab, from Abu Idris, from Thawban, with no mention of Abu Zura, and Abu Khattab is unknown. A fourth time, from Abu Zura, from Abu Idris, from Thawban, as with Bazzar (1353, Kashf Astar). And a fifth time, from Layth, from Abu Zura, from Thawban, as with Hakim (4/103), with neither Abu Khattab nor Abu Idris mentioned in it. All of this adds further weakness to its weakness.As for his saying "the intermediary," it is objectionable, mentioned only in this hadith, and on this subject there are other hadiths, all of them defective.As for his saying "the briber," that is the one who gives, and "the bribe-taker," that is the one who takes, the punishment attaches to both of them together only when they are equal in intent and purpose, so that the giver bribes in order to attain something false by it, and to reach injustice through it. But if he gives in order to reach a right through it, or to ward off an injustice from himself, then he is not included in this threat. Mentioned by Khattabi.