Azami 7143

Ibn Jarud narrated it in al-Muntaqa (935), and from him Bayhaqi (10/72), from Muhammad bin Yahya, who said, Muhammad bin Musa bin Ayman narrated to us, Khattab narrated to us, Abdul-Kareem narrated to us, from Ata bin Abu Rabah, from Ibn Abbas, and he mentioned it. Its chain is hasan because of Khattab, who is Ibn Qasim Harrani, concerning whom there is disagreement. Ibn Main and Abu Zura declared him reliable, and Abu Hatim said, his hadith is written down. Ahmad bin Hanbal said, "There is no harm in him," but Bardhaee said, "I heard Abu Zura mention Khattab bin Qasim Harrani, and he said, 'His hadith is munkar,' and it was said that he became confused and changed before his death." The unqualified declaration of reliability from Ibn Main and Abu Zura indicates that his confusion had no effect, since it occurred before his death, and most of those who narrated from him did so before that. So his chain does not fall below the level of hasan. This is supported by the legal opinion of Ibn Abbas himself, as narrated by Ibn Abu Shayba (12544) from Waki, from Shuba, from Abu Jamra Dubai, that a man from Banu Salim vowed to put a nose-ring on himself, and Ibn Abbas said, "There are two kinds of vows. Whatever is for Allah requires fulfillment, and whatever is for Satan requires expiation. Release your nose-ring, and expiate for your oath."On this subject there is also what was narrated from Imran bin Husayn, who said, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, "There is no vow in disobedience, and its expiation is the expiation of an oath." Nasai narrated it (3840) through Yahya bin Abu Kathir, from Muhammad bin Zubayr Hanzali, from his father, from Imran bin Husayn, and he mentioned it. Nasai said, "Muhammad bin Zubayr is daif, and evidence cannot be established by the likes of him, and there is disagreement over this hadith as narrated through him." Then he said, and it was said that Zubayr did not hear this hadith from Imran bin Husayn. Then he, along with Ahmad (19888) and Bayhaqi (10/70) and others, narrated it inserting a man between Zubayr and Imran bin Husayn. Bayhaqi said, Zubayr did not hear from Imran, and there is much disagreement over this hadith, as is the case with the hadith of Ayesha to follow.As for the hadith of Ayesha, it was narrated through two routes. The first is what Abu Dawud (3290), Tirmidhi (1524), Nasai (3834), Ibn Majah (2125), Ahmad (26098), Tahawi in his Mushkil (2158), and Bayhaqi (10/69) all narrated through various routes from Yunus bin Yazid, from Ibn Shihab, from Abu Salama, from Ayesha, who said, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, "There is no vow in disobedience to Allah, and its expiation is the expiation of an oath." In a narration with Nasai (3838), from Ibn Shihab, who said, Abu Salama narrated to us, from Ayesha, except that Nasai found fault with it for the reason that follows. Abu Dawud said, I heard Ahmad bin Shabbuya say, Ibn Mubarak said, meaning about this hadith, Abu Salama narrated. This indicates that Zuhri did not hear it from Abu Salama. Ahmad bin Muhammad said, "And confirming this is what Ayub narrated to us," meaning Ibn Sulayman. Abu Dawud said, "I heard Ahmad bin Hanbal say, they have corrupted this hadith for us. It was said to him, and has its corruption been confirmed to you? And did anyone other than Ibn Abu Uways narrate it? He said, Ayub was more reliable than him," meaning Ayub bin Sulayman bin Bilal, "and Ayub narrated it." End of quote.Tirmidhi said, "This hadith is not sahih, because Zuhri did not hear this hadith from Abu Salama." He said, I asked Muhammad, who said, more than one narrated it, among them Musa bin Uqba and Ibn Abu Atiq, from Zuhri, from Sulayman bin Arqam, from Yahya bin Abu Kathir, from Abu Salama, from Ayesha, from the Prophet ﷺ. Muhammad said, "The hadith is this one." Then Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud, Baghawi in Sharh al-Sunnah (2447), and others narrated it from the hadith of Musa bin Uqba and Abdullah bin Abu Atiq with its chain as Bukhari mentioned it. Then Tirmidhi said, "This is a gharib hadith, and it is more sahih than the hadith of Abu Safwan, from Yunus. Abu Safwan is from Makkah, and his name is Abdullah bin Saeed bin Abdul-Malik bin Marwan. Humaydi and more than one of the eminent scholars of hadith narrated from him." Baghawi said, "This is a gharib hadith." Hafiz Ibn Qayyim said in Tahzib Sunan (4/373), "This is a hadith with disagreement over both its chain and its text, as we have mentioned, and evidence cannot be established by the likes of that."I say, Sulayman bin Arqam is daif by the agreement of the scholars. Nasai said, "Sulayman bin Arqam is matruk in hadith. And Allah knows best. More than one of the companions of Yahya bin Abu Kathir disagreed with him over this hadith." Then he presented it through various routes from Yahya bin Abu Kathir, from Muhammad bin Zubayr Hanzali, from his father, from Imran bin Husayn, who said, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, "There is no vow in disobedience, and its expiation is the expiation of an oath." Then Nasai said, Muhammad bin Zubayr is daif, and evidence cannot be established by the likes of him, and there is disagreement over this hadith as narrated through him. Then he presented it with the wording, "There is no vow in anger, and its expiation is the expiation of an oath." And he said, and it was said that Zubayr did not hear this hadith from Imran bin Husayn. Then he presented it with his chain from Muhammad bin Zubayr, from his father, from a man from the people of Basra, who said, I accompanied Imran bin Husayn, who said, I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say, "There are two kinds of vows. Whatever is a vow of obedience to Allah belongs to Allah and requires fulfillment, and whatever is a vow of disobedience to Allah belongs to Satan and requires no fulfillment, and it is expiated by what expiates an oath."He also narrated it from Muhammad bin Zubayr, from Hasan, from Imran bin Husayn, who mentioned it as marfu, "There is no vow in disobedience or in anger, and its expiation is the expiation of an oath." He also narrated it with another wording, "There is no vow in disobedience, and its expiation is the expiation of an oath." And he said, Mansur bin Zazan disagreed with him in his wording, and he presented it from Mansur, from Hasan, from Imran bin Husayn, who said, he, meaning the Prophet ﷺ, said, "There is no vow for the son of Adam regarding what he does not possess, and none in disobedience to Allah ." And he said, Ali bin Zayd disagreed with him, narrating it from Hasan, from Abdul-Rahman bin Samura. Then he presented it from Ali bin Zayd bin Jadan, from Hasan, from Abdul-Rahman bin Samura, from the Prophet ﷺ, who said, "There is no vow in disobedience, nor regarding what the son of Adam does not possess."Nasai said, "Ali bin Zayd is daif, and this hadith is an error. The correct version is Imran bin Husayn. This hadith has also been narrated from Imran bin Husayn through another route." Then he presented it from Ayub, who said, Abu Qilaba narrated to us, from his uncle, from Imran bin Husayn, who said, the Messenger of Allah said, "There is no vow in disobedience, nor regarding what the son of Adam does not possess." Nasai has thus exposed the flaws of this hadith, showing confusion in the chain, weakness in the narrators, disconnection in the chain, and disagreement in the wordings, even though it outwardly appears sound. That is why Hafiz said in Talkhis (4/175), "Its chain is sahih, but it is flawed. It was narrated by Ahmad, the authors of the Sunan, and Bayhaqi through the narration of Zuhri, from Abu Salama, from Abu Hurairah, and it is disconnected, since Zuhri did not hear it from Abu Salama." Tahawi said in his Mushkil (2158) that this hadith is shadhdh. He said, we found it to have a corrupt chain. Then he presented it through the route of Sulayman bin Arqam and said, Sulayman bin Arqam is not one whose hadith is accepted by the people of the chain of transmission. End of quote.The second route is what Tahawi narrated in his Mushkil (2144, 1514), from Muhammad bin Ali bin Dawud Baghdadi, who said, Saeed bin Sulayman Wasiti narrated to us, who said, Hafs bin Ghiyath narrated to us, from Ubaydullah bin Umar, from Qasim bin Muhammad, from Ayesha, from the Prophet ﷺ, who said, "Whoever vows to obey Allah should obey Him, and whoever vows to disobey Allah should not disobey Him." Hafs said, and I heard Ibn Muhayriz, while he was with Ubaydullah, mention it from Qasim, from Ayesha, from the Prophet ﷺ, with the wording, "Let him expiate for his oath."Tahawi said in the first instance, "In reality, Ubaydullah bin Umar did not hear this hadith from Qasim. Rather, Talha bin Abdul-Malik Ayli took it from Qasim, from Ayesha." And he said in the second instance, "We examined the chain of this hadith and found that Hafs bin Ghiyath narrated it from Ubaydullah bin Umar, from Qasim, and it appeared that Ubaydullah had heard it from Qasim. But when we investigated this, we found that he had not heard it from him, and had rather taken it from someone else." End of his words. Hafiz Ibn Hajar quoted in Talkhis (4/175) from Ibn Qattan his statement, "I have doubt about the raising of this addition to marfu status." And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.It was narrated from Ibn Abbas that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, "Whoever makes a vow without specifying it, its expiation is the expiation of an oath. Whoever vows a vow of disobedience, its expiation is the expiation of an oath. Whoever vows a vow he cannot fulfill, its expiation is the expiation of an oath. And whoever vows a vow he can fulfill, let him fulfill it." Abu Dawud narrated it (3322), and from him Bayhaqi (10/45), from Jafar bin Musafir Tinnisi, who said, Ibn Abu Fudayk narrated to us, who said, Talha bin Yahya Ansari informed me, from Abdullah bin Saeed bin Abu Hind, from Bukayr bin Abdullah bin Ashaj, from Kurayb, from Ibn Abbas, and he mentioned it.Abu Dawud said, "This hadith was narrated by Waki and others from Abdullah bin Saeed bin Abu Hind, and they stopped it at Ibn Abbas as his own statement." I say, the mawquf version is the correct one, because Talha bin Yahya Ansari's disagreement with Waki and those with him cannot be accepted. But Bayhaqi said, after quoting Abu Dawud's words, "It has also been narrated from others, from Abdullah, likewise as marfu."I say, it was also narrated by Ibn Majah (2128) through another route, from Abdul-Malik bin Muhammad Sanani, who said, Kharija bin Musab narrated to us, from Bukayr bin Abdullah bin Ashaj, from Kurayb, from Ibn Abbas, from the Prophet ﷺ, and he mentioned the same, except that he did not mention in it, "Whoever vows a vow of disobedience, its expiation is the expiation of an oath." In it is Kharija bin Musab bin Kharija Sarakhsi, who is daif by the agreement of the scholars, along with tadlis. Perhaps what Bayhaqi meant by his statement, "It was also narrated through another route that is not strong, from Bukayr bin Ashaj," is this very route. So the correct position is that it is the statement of Ibn Abbas himself, and likewise Baghawi mentioned it in Sharh al-Sunnah (10/35) as the statement of Ibn Abbas, and said, some narrated it as marfu.These hadiths and reports were relied upon by those who held that whoever vows a vow of disobedience should not commit the disobedience, and must expiate as for an oath. This was held by Jabir bin Abdullah, Ibn Abbas, and Ibn Masud, and it was the view adopted by Abu Hanifa and Ahmad.Ibn Qayyim said, "Those who require expiation for a vow of disobedience say, these reports have multiple routes, and their narrators are reliable, and the hadith of Ayesha was relied upon by Imam Ahmad and Ishaq bin Rahawayh. Even though Zuhri did not hear it from Abu Salama, it has corroborating reports that strengthen it. It was narrated from the Prophet ﷺ, besides Ayesha, by Jabir, Imran bin Husayn, and Abdullah bin Umar, as Tirmidhi stated." End of quote.I say, there is no disagreement among the scholars that whoever says, "If Allah cures my sick person, or brings back my absent one," or something similar, "then I owe such and such fasting," or "such and such prayer," or "such and such charity," must fulfill his vow if it is within his power. If it is not within his power, then apparently he owes the expiation of an oath.It has been said, no mention of expiation came in the hadiths mentioned in the previous chapter. Ibn Qudama said, "But mention of it has come in our hadiths." Mughni (13/626). And he said, "If he carries out what he vowed of the disobedience, no expiation is due upon him, just as if he swore he would commit a disobedience and then did commit it. But it is possible that expiation would be obligatory upon him absolutely, because the Prophet ﷺ specified expiation in this matter, and forbade committing the disobedience." End of quote.For example, if someone vows to stand in the sun for three hours, which is a disobedience, but he does stand in the sun for three hours, then no expiation is due upon him, by agreement. But if he does not stand, then expiation is due upon him, as Ahmad and others said.