Azami 7234

Reported by Abu Dawud (2838), Tirmidhi (1522), Nasai (4220), Ibn Majah (3165), and Imam Ahmad (20083), all of them through various routes from Qatada, from Hasan, from Samura bin Jundab, who mentioned it. And Imam Ahmad (20083), all of them through various routes from Qatada, from Hasan, from Samura bin Jundab, who mentioned it. Its chain of transmission is sahih. Hasan here is Hasan Basri, who did hear this hadith from Samura bin Jundab, as shown by what Bukhari related in his Sahih following the hadith of Abu Hurairah (5472), from Abdullah bin Abu Aswad, who said, Quraysh bin Anas told us, from Habib bin Shaheed, who said, "Ibn Sirin instructed me to ask Hasan from whom he heard the hadith about aqiqah, and he said, From Samura bin Jundab." For this reason, Bukhari and his teacher Ali bin Madini held the view that all of Hasan's narrations from Samura should be treated as connected transmissions.As for the wording "rahina" (pledged), this comes from "rahn" (a pledge), with the added "ha" serving for emphasis, similar to "shatima" and "shatm". The word was then used to mean the thing pledged itself, so it is said "huwa rahnun bikadha" and "rahinatun bikadha". The meaning of "rahinatun bi-aqiqatihi" is that the aqiqah is a binding obligation attached to the child, something unavoidable, likening the child's inescapable attachment to it to a pledge held in the hand of the one who holds it as security. Khattabi said, People have discussed this matter, and the best explanation given is the one held by Ahmad bin Hanbal, who said this concerns intercession, meaning that if the aqiqah is not performed for the child and he dies as an infant, he will not intercede for his parents. It has also been said that its meaning is that the child remains bound by the impurity of his hair, and they cited as evidence the phrase "so remove from him the impurity," which refers to the blood of the womb that clings to him. This was mentioned by Ibn Athir in Nihaya (2/681).As for the word rendered "yusamma" (he is named), it has also been read as "yudamma" (he is smeared with blood), but the correct reading is "yusamma," as stated by Abu Dawud and others. See further, Minna Kubra (4/525).The apparent meaning of the hadith indicates that the day of birth is counted, and accordingly the animal is slaughtered on the sixth day following it. Some scholars of knowledge said the day of birth is not counted, so the slaughter takes place on the seventh day following it. This is what Malik said, unless the child is born before Fajr on the night of that day. Whoever delays past the seventh day, then it is up to the parents to perform the aqiqah whenever they wish. It has been related from Ayesha that the aqiqah is performed in the second or third week. Shafii and Ahmad held this view, though Malik did not go beyond the second week. Others said, Whoever misses the seventh day should slaughter whenever it becomes convenient.As for what has been related from Burayda that the Prophet ﷺ said, "The aqiqah is slaughtered on the seventh day, or the fourteenth, or the twenty-first," this is daif. It was reported by Tabarani in Awsat (4879) and in Sagheer (723), and by Bayhaqi (9/303), all of them through the route of Abdul-Wahhab bin Ata Khafaf, from Ismail bin Muslim, from Qatada, from Abdullah bin Burayda, from his father, who mentioned it. Tabarani said following it, "This hadith was not related from Qatada except by Ismail bin Muslim," and added in Sagheer, "Khafaf alone related it." I say, Ismail bin Muslim is the one from Makkah, and there is agreement on his being daif. Haythami faulted the hadith on this basis in Majma (4/59). I say, there are other hadiths conveying the same meaning, but none of them are sahih.