Azami 6763

Tirmidhi (1344), Ibn Majah (2369), Ahmad (14278), Ibn Jarud (1008), Daraqutni (4/212), and Bayhaqi (10/170) all narrated it through various routes from Abdul-Wahhab bin Abdul-Majid Thaqafi, who said, "Jafar bin Muhammad narrated to us, from his father, from Jabir bin Abdullah," and he related it.Abu Abdul-Rahman (Abdullah bin Ahmad) said, "My father had struck out this hadith." He said, "No one agreed with Thaqafi regarding Jabir. I kept pressing him about it until he read it back to me and wrote next to it, 'Sahih.'"Abdul-Wahhab bin Abdul-Majid Thaqafi is among the trustworthy narrators, and he was corroborated in connecting the chain by Humayd bin Aswad, Abdullah Umari, Hisham bin Saad, and others, all reporting from Jafar bin Muhammad, from his father, from Jabir.This is the view Daraqutni preferred in his Ilal (3/96-97), where he said, "Jafar bin Muhammad would sometimes narrate this hadith with the companion omitted, and sometimes he would connect it through Jabir, because a group of trustworthy narrators preserved it from his father, from Jabir, and their account is to be accepted, since they added something and they are trustworthy, and the addition of a trustworthy narrator is accepted." Zaylai also mentioned this in Nasb Raya (4/100).As for Tirmidhi, he preferred the view that the chain was incomplete. After narrating it from Ali bin Hajar, who said, "Ismail bin Jafar informed us, he said, Jafar bin Muhammad narrated to us, from his father, that the Prophet ﷺ ruled by an oath together with a single witness," he said, "And Ali ruled by it among you," Tirmidhi said, "This is more sahih."Likewise, Sufyan Thawri narrated it from Jafar bin Muhammad, from his father, from the Prophet ﷺ, with the chain incomplete, omitting the companion.Among those who preferred the view that the chain was incomplete was Bukhari, as recorded in Ilal al-Kabir (1/545), and likewise Abu Hatim and Abu Zura Razi preferred that view in their Ilal (1/467), where they both said, "Abdul-Wahhab erred in this hadith, for it is rather from Jafar, from his father, attributed directly to the Prophet ﷺ, with the chain incomplete."I say, Malik also narrated it in Muwatta with the chain incomplete. But Ibn Abdul-Barr said in Istidhkar (22/47), "The hadith in Muwatta has an incomplete chain according to all its transmitters, yet a group of trustworthy narrators narrated it from Jafar bin Muhammad with a complete chain..." and he then listed a number of them.He also said in Tamhid (1352), "The addition of the one with strong memory is preserved," and then he cited the chains of these narrators.I say, the principles of hadith science require accepting the addition of a trustworthy narrator, for anyone who examines this science closely knows that a hadith may be transmitted through several routes, and not every route invalidates another. One group's preference for a particular route does not mean that others must regard the remaining routes as weak as well.On this subject there is also what was narrated from Sarq bin Asad Juhani, that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ permitted the testimony of a man together with the oath of the claimant. Ibn Majah (2371) narrated it from Abu Bakr bin Abu Shayba, who said, "Yazid bin Harun narrated to us, he said, Juwayria bin Asma informed us, he said, Abdullah bin Yazid, the freed slave of Munbaith, narrated to us, from a man from the people of Egypt, from Sarq," and he related it. Bayhaqi likewise narrated it (10/172-173) through the route of Juwayria bin Asma, but its chain is daif due to the unknown identity of the successor.There are also other hadiths on this subject, but the sahih view is what I have set out here.Ruling by an oath together with a witness, according to Malik and Shafii, applies specifically to financial matters. Shafii added that it also applies to manumission, based on the statement of Amr bin Dinar, "That is in financial matters."The Kufans, Uzai, Nakhai, Zuhri, Shaybi, and others reject ruling by a witness together with an oath, citing the words of Allah,"And if there are not two men, then a man and two women from those you accept as witnesses" [Baqarah 2:282]arguing that the verse implies a restriction, and that adding to it amounts to abrogation, and the Quran can only be abrogated by the Quran.This is what they said, but perhaps the hadith that speaks explicitly to this matter did not reach them. Their claim that the verse implies a restriction is not correct, and their claim that adding to it constitutes abrogation is likewise not correct, for what is established by the Quran remains in force, though there may be an addition to it. This is because the Prophet ﷺ said, "I have been given the Quran, and its like along with it," meaning by "its like" the sunnah. There are many such examples that the majority of scholars have accepted, including the people of Iraq.I have discussed this matter in detail in Minna Kubra (9/136-145).