Azami 6860

Bayhaqi (8/38), Ibn Jarud (788), and Daraqutni (3/140) all narrated it through the hadith of Muhammad bin Muslim bin Wara, who said, Muhammad bin Saeed bin Sabiq told us, Amr bin Abu Qays told us, from Mansur, from Muhammad bin Ajlan, from Amr bin Shuayb, with his chain of transmission. The wording given here is that of Bayhaqi and Ibn Jarud. As for Daraqutni, he abbreviated it to his saying, "A father is not killed in retaliation for his son." Its chain is hasan because of Amr bin Shuayb. Bayhaqi said in Marifah (12/40) that its chain is sahih.I say, Muhammad bin Ajlan is truthful (saduq), and he was corroborated by Hajjaj bin Artah in his statement, "A father is not killed for his child." This was narrated by Tirmidhi (1400), Ibn Majah (2662), Ahmad (346), Abu Asim in Diyat (134), Daraqutni, Bayhaqi, and others, all through the route of Hajjaj bin Artah, from Amr bin Shuayb, from his father, from his grandfather, who said, A man killed his son deliberately, so the matter was brought before Umar bin Khattab, who imposed on him a hundred camels. He went on to say, "Were it not that I heard the Messenger of Allah say, 'A father is not killed for his child,' I would have killed you."Hajjaj bin Artah practiced tadlis and is daif, but he was also corroborated by Ibn Lahia, who said, Amr bin Shuayb told us, from his father, from his grandfather, from Umar, that the Messenger of Allah said, "A father is not killed in retaliation for his child," and the Messenger of Allah said, "The one who inherits the wala inherits the property." This was narrated by Imam Ahmad (147) from Abu Saeed, who said, Abdullah bin Lahia told us with his chain of transmission. It has been said that Ibn Lahia did not hear directly from Amr bin Shuayb, but this narration refutes that claim, since it explicitly states that he heard it directly.In summary, regarding the hadith of Amr bin Shuayb, it is hasan because of him, and Bayhaqi graded it sahih as mentioned above. The hadith of Amr bin Shuayb has other chains besides this one, but what I have cited is the most sound of them.As for what was narrated from Suraqa bin Malik, who said, I was present with the Messenger of Allah, "A father is not retaliated against for his son, nor is a son retaliated against for his father," this is daif. It was narrated by Tirmidhi (1399) from Ali bin Hajar, who said, Ismail bin Ayyash told us, Muthanna bin Sabbah told us, from Amr bin Shuayb, from his father, from his grandfather, from Suraqa bin Malik, and so he related it.Tirmidhi said, "We do not know this hadith from the hadith of Suraqa except through this route, and its chain is not sahih. Ismail bin Ayyash narrated it from Muthanna bin Sabbah, and Muthanna bin Sabbah is considered weak in hadith."I say, Ismail bin Ayyash is daif with regard to narrators other than the Syrians, and this is one such case, since Muthanna bin Sabbah is not Syrian.Tirmidhi then said, "This hadith has also been narrated by Abu Khalid Ahmar, from Hajjaj, from Amr bin Shuayb, from his father, from his grandfather, from Umar, from the Prophet. This hadith has also been narrated from Amr bin Shuayb as a mursal report, and this hadith contains confusion (idtirab)." He then presented the narration of Hajjaj bin Artah as mentioned earlier.Likewise, what was narrated from Ibn Abbas, from the Prophet, who said, "Legal punishments are not carried out in mosques, and a father is not killed for his son," is also daif. It was narrated by Tirmidhi (1401), Ibn Majah (2661), and Darimi (2402) through the hadith of Ismail bin Muslim Makki, from Amr bin Dinar, from Tawus, from Ibn Abbas, and so he related it.Tirmidhi said, "We do not know this hadith with this chain as a raised (marfu) report except through the hadith of Ismail bin Muslim, and Ismail bin Muslim Makki has been criticized by some scholars regarding his memory."Through this same route it was also narrated by Daraqutni (3/141) and Bayhaqi (8/39), who found fault with it because of Ismail bin Muslim Makki. However, it was corroborated by weak corroborations, among them Saeed bin Bashir, from Amr bin Dinar, with his chain, in similar wording. This was narrated by Hakim (4/369), and both he and Dhahabi remained silent on it, even though Saeed bin Bashir, who is Azdi, is considered daif by the majority of scholars. He was criticized by Bukhari, Ibn Main, Abu Dawud, Nasai, and others, except for Ibn Adi, who saw no problem with his narration. The view of the majority takes precedence. It has other corroborations that are not worth rejoicing over. In summary, the hadith of Ibn Abbas is not sound.As for the statement of Abdul-Haqq in his Ahkam (4/70) and Ibn Qattan in Wahm wal-Iham (3/565), that all these hadiths are defective and none of them are sound, this requires reconsideration in light of what has preceded. The hadith of Umar bin Khattab is at the very least hasan, and Bayhaqi said it is sahih. It was also graded sahih by Ibn Abdul-Barr in Tamhid (23/437), where he said, "It is a hadith well known among the scholars of Hijaz and Iraq, widely circulated among them, its fame, acceptance, and practical application make it independent of needing a chain of transmission, to the point that establishing a chain for such a hadith, given its fame, would almost seem like an unnecessary formality." This is what he said, even though the existence of a chain is the very foundation for determining a hadith's soundness or weakness.The jurisprudential understanding of the hadith:Shafii said, "I have preserved from a number of scholars I met that a father is not killed for his child, and that is what I say." Bayhaqi mentioned this (8/38).Tirmidhi said, "The practice among the scholars is that if a father kills his son, he is not killed in retaliation, and if he accuses his son of unlawful sexual conduct, he is not given the legal punishment for false accusation."I say, this is also the view held by the Hanafis and the Hanbalis.