Azami 6867

It was narrated both connected and mursal. As for the connected version, Abu Dawud (4540), Nasai (4789), Ibn Majah (2635), Tahawi in his Mushkil (4900), Daraqutni (3/94), and Bayhaqi (7/25, 53) all narrated it, all of them through Sulayman bin Kathir, from Amr bin Dinar, from Tawus, from Ibn Abbas, who related it.Ibn Mulaqqin said in Badr Munir (8/409), "Ibn Majah's version meets the standard of the two Shaykhs." He said in Tanqih (4/481), "Its chain is good, but it has been narrated mursal." Ibn Hajar said in Bulugh Maram (1001) that its chain is strong, and he was silent about it in his commentary on Mishkat (3408), which makes it hasan, as he stated explicitly in the introduction, "Whatever I remain silent about is hasan."I say, the apparent state of its chain is hasan, for Sulayman bin Kathir is disputed, though his hadith is hasan except when it comes through Zuhri, and this is not from the hadith of Zuhri. He was corroborated by Hasan bin Umara and Ismail bin Muslim, as Bayhaqi stated, and Daraqutni narrated it through their route in his Sunan (3/93-94).As for the mursal version, Abu Dawud (4539) narrated it through two routes from the hadith of Hammad and Sufyan, both from Amr, from Tawus, who said, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, and he related the hadith similarly. Bayhaqi pointed to it by saying, "Hammad bin Zayd narrated it, along with others, from Amr, from Tawus, mursal." Daraqutni, in Ilal (3/35-36), affirmed the mursal version as sahih.There is no doubt that Sufyan is stronger and more reliable than Sulayman bin Kathir, but Tahawi said, "Sufyan used to narrate it this way at the end, and he had previously narrated it as Sulayman bin Kathir narrated it. Even if they differed, Sulayman would still be an accepted narrator, firmly established in narration, one whose hadith, if he narrated it alone, would be accepted from him. And if that is the case, then whatever he adds beyond others in a hadith, his addition to it is accepted."I say, in addition to that, Sulayman bin Kathir was not alone in narrating it as connected, as already mentioned.As for the meaning of the hadith in its statement, "Whoever kills intentionally, retaliation applies to him," this means that the obligatory ruling is retaliation, but if the guardians of the slain person waive retaliation, that is their right, whether by pardon or by blood money. So there is no contradiction between retaliation and accepting blood money. His statement, "No sarf will be accepted from him," means repentance. And his statement, "nor adl," means fidya.On this subject there is also what was narrated from Zayd bin Dumayra, who said, my father and my uncle told me, and they had both witnessed Hunayn with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. They said, the Prophet ﷺ prayed Dhuhr, then sat beneath a tree. Aqra bin Habis, who was the chief of Khindif, rose to him seeking to avert the blood-price for the killing of Mihlam bin Juththama, while Uyayna bin Hisn rose seeking retribution for the blood of Amir bin Adbat, who was from Ashja. The Prophet ﷺ said to them, "Will you accept the blood money?" They refused. Then a man from Banu Layth stood up, called Mukaytil, and said, "Messenger of Allah, by Allah, I have never seen anything like this killing, in the very dawn of Islam, except like sheep that came to drink and were shot at, so the rest of them scattered." The Prophet ﷺ said, "You shall have fifty during our journey, and fifty when we return." So they accepted the blood money.Ibn Majah (2625) narrated it, and this is his wording, as did Abu Dawud (4503), Ibn Jarud (777), Abdullah bin Ahmad in the Musnad of his father (21081), and Bayhaqi (9/116), all of them from the hadith of Muhammad bin Ishaq, who said, Muhammad bin Jafar told me, from Zayd bin Dumayra, and they related it at length. And it was stated regarding them that his father and his grandfather had witnessed Hunayn.Zayd bin Dumayra, also called Ziyad bin Saad bin Dumayra, and also called Ziyad bin Dumayra bin Saad, no one narrated from him except Muhammad bin Jafar, and no one deemed him reliable except Ibn Hibban. For this reason, Ibn Hajar said in Taqrib, "Acceptable," meaning when corroborated. But I have not found such corroboration.There is also disagreement regarding his chain of transmission. Abu Dawud narrated it from Wahb bin Bayan and Ahmad bin Saeed Hamdani, who both said, Ibn Wahb told us, Abdul-Rahman bin Abu Zinad informed me, from Abdul-Rahman bin Harith, from Muhammad bin Jafar, that he heard Ziyad bin Saad bin Dumayra Sulami relating to Urwa bin Zubayr, from his father. He did not mention in it "and from his grandfather." Bayhaqi narrated it through this same route.So at one time the story is told from his father and his uncle who witnessed Hunayn, at another time from his father and his grandfather, and at a third time from his father alone.