Azami 6918

It was narrated by Tirmidhi (2626), Ibn Majah (2604), Ahmad (775), Daraqutni (3/215), Tahawi in his Mushkil (2181), Hakim (2/445), and Bayhaqi (8/328), all of them from the hadith of Hajjaj bin Muhammad, from Yunus bin Abu Ishaq, from Abu Ishaq Hamadani, from Abu Juhayfa, from Ali, who related it. Its chain is hasan due to the discussion surrounding Yunus bin Abu Ishaq in his narration from his father Abu Ishaq, except that his hadith is hasan when he is not contradicted, even though his son Israil bin Yunus is more reliable than him regarding his grandfather Abu Ishaq. Whoever contradicts him and narrates it from Abu Ishaq as a stopped report (mawquf) is worth nothing.Daraqutni mentioned in his Ilal (3/128-129) some of those who narrated it from Abu Ishaq, from Abu Juhayfa, as mawquf, then said, "But raising it to the Prophet (marfu) is sahih." Tirmidhi said, "Hasan gharib sahih," and in one copy, "Hasan gharib." Hakim said, "This is a sahih hadith meeting the criteria of the two Shaykhs (Bukhari and Muslim)." The correct view is that it is hasan, as I have said.On this subject there is also what was narrated from Khuzayma bin Thabit, from the Prophet ﷺ, who said, "Whoever commits a sin and has the prescribed punishment for that sin carried out against him, that is his atonement for it." This was narrated by Ahmad (21866), Tabarani (3731), Daraqutni (3/214), and Hakim (4/388), all of them from the hadith of Usama bin Zayd, from Muhammad bin Munkadir, from Ibn Khuzayma bin Thabit, from his father, who related it.Hakim said, "Sahih in its chain." This is as he said based on the apparent chain, and it does not harm the report that the son of Khuzayma is not named, for he is Umara bin Khuzayma, who is a well-known trustworthy narrator from his father. Ibn Hajar graded its chain hasan in Fath al-Bari (1/67) (8/12). However, there is disagreement regarding Usama bin Zayd, for he was described as one who made many errors, even though he was himself truthful. At one time he narrated it this way, and at another time as will follow.Tirmidhi asked Bukhari, as recorded in Ilal al-Kabir (2/602), about this hadith, and he said, "This is a hadith in which there is confusion (idtirab)," and he weakened it severely. He said, and Muhammad (Bukhari) said, it was also narrated from Usama bin Zayd, from a man, from Bukayr bin Ashaj, from Muhammad bin Munkadir, from Khuzayma bin Thabit. And Munkadir bin Muhammad narrated it from his father, from Khuzayma bin Mamar. End of quote.Munkadir bin Muhammad is disputed. Imam Ahmad said, "Trustworthy." Ibn Main said, "There is no harm in him." Nasai, Juzjani, and Ajli weakened him. Abu Zura said, "Not strong." Abu Hatim said, "He was a righteous man who did not understand hadith well, and he made many errors."As for what was narrated from Zuhri, that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, "I do not know whether Uzayr was a prophet or not, and whether Tubba was accursed or not, and whether the prescribed punishments are atonements for those who bear them or not," this is sahih as a mursal report. It was narrated by Bukhari in Tarikh al-Kabir (1/152), who said, Abdullah bin Muhammad told me, Hisham told us, he said, Mamar told us, from Ibn Abu Dhib, from Zuhri, who related it.It was also narrated by Abu Dawud (4674) through the route of Abdul-Razzaq, Mamar informed us, from Ibn Abu Dhib, from Saeed bin Abu Saeed, from Abu Hurairah, as a raised report (marfu), "I do not know whether Tubba was accursed or not. I do not know whether Uzayr was a prophet or not." He did not mention in it, "The prescribed punishments are atonements for those who bear them." Hakim also narrated it (1/92) through the route of Abdul-Razzaq, and mentioned in it, "I do not know whether the prescribed punishments are atonements for those who bear them or not."Bukhari said, "The first version is more sahih, and this is not established from the Prophet ﷺ, because the Prophet ﷺ said, 'The prescribed punishments are an atonement.'" Likewise, more than one scholar preferred the mursal version, because Hisham, who is Ibn Yusuf Sanani, is more reliable and more precise than Abdul-Razzaq. Abu Hatim Razi was asked about Hisham, Abdul-Razzaq, and Muhammad bin Thawr, and he said, "Hisham was the eldest of them, the most retentive of them, and the most precise in matters of criticism and endorsement (jarh and tadil)" (9/71).So Bukhari's preference for the mursal version rested on two grounds. First, its contradiction with the sahih hadith. Second, that Hisham bin Yusuf Sanani is more reliable than Abdul-Razzaq. More discussion of these two figures will follow.It should not be said that the hadith of Abu Hurairah precedes the hadith of Ubada bin Samit, such that the hadith of Ubada would be an abrogation of the hadith of Abu Hurairah, because the hadith of Ubada took place in Makkah on the night of Aqaba, when the Prophet ﷺ took the pledge of allegiance from the Ansar at Mina, while the hadith of Abu Hurairah would be later, since he accepted Islam seven years after that, in the year of Khaybar. However, Ibn Hajar denies that the hadith of Ubada took place in Makkah, and even granting that it did, he mentions interpretations after having graded the hadith of Abu Hurairah as sahih. See Fath al-Bari (1/61).Haythami said in Majma (6/265), "Bazzar narrated it," Kashf Astar (1543), "with two chains, the men of one of them are the men of the sahih collections, apart from Ahmad bin Mansur Ramadi, who is trustworthy."