Azami 6730

It was narrated by Abu Dawud (3582), and the wording is his, by Tirmidhi (1331), and by Bayhaqi (137/10), all of them through various routes from Hanash, from Ali, who mentioned it. Hanash is Ibn Mutamir, about whom there is disagreement, though his hadith is hasan.The hadith has another route, which is what was narrated by Ahmad (666) and Bazzar (721), both through the route of Israil, from Abu Ishaq, from Haritha bin Mudarrib, from Ali, who mentioned it in abbreviated form. Bazzar said, "We do not know of anyone who narrated this hadith from Haritha bin Mudarrib except Abu Ishaq, nor from Abu Ishaq except Israil. Several others narrated it from Ali, and the best chain reported from Ali is this chain."As for what was narrated by Ibn Majah (2310), Ahmad (636), and Hakim (3/135), all of them through the route of Amash, from Amr bin Mura, from Abu Bakhtari, who said that Ali said it as mentioned. Abu Bakhtari never heard anything directly from Ali. Despite this, Hakim said, "Sahih according to the standard of the two Shaykhs (Bukhari and Muslim)."Explanation of the hadith. Khattabi said, "In it is evidence that a judge should not rule against someone who is absent. This is because if the judge is prevented from ruling in favor of one of two litigants while both are present, until he hears the words of the other, then this indicates that in the case of an absent party, whom he has not seen and whose statement he has not heard, it is even more appropriate to withhold judgment. This is because it is possible that the absent party has an argument that would invalidate the claim of the one who is present." This is the position of Abu Hanifa. Malik and Shafii said, "It is permissible to rule against an absent person if it becomes clear to the judge that his flight and concealment are simply an evasion of the truth and defiance of the opposing party." End of quote.They said that the hadith of Ali should be understood as applying to two litigants who are both present, whose statements can both be heard, so that judgment should not be made in favor of one of them until the words of the other have been heard. But when the opposing party is absent, the hearing of the present party's statement should not be neglected, lest this become a means of nullifying rights.Bayhaqi cited as evidence for ruling against an absent person the hadith of Hind, the wife of Abu Sufyan, in which the Prophet ﷺ said, "Take what is sufficient for you and your children," arguing that he ruled against Abu Sufyan in his absence. However, Ibn Turkmani and others excused this by saying that it was a matter of a legal opinion (fatwa), not a judicial ruling, since the position of Abu Hanifa and his followers is that ruling against an absent person is not permissible.This is mentioned by Tahawi in Ikhtilaf Ulama (the abridged version) (386/3), and there is further discussion of it, refer to Minna Kubra (45/9).