Azami 8085

Nasai (3141) and Bayhaqi (9/170) narrated it through Hajjaj bin Muhammad (that is, Masissi), Tirmidhi (1654, 1657) in divided form, Ahmad (22116) and Hakim (2/77) in abridged form through Rawh bin Ubada, Ibn Majah (2792) in abridged form through Dahhak bin Makhlad, and Ahmad (22014, 22116) through Abdul-Razzaq (it is in his Musannaf, 9534) and Muhammad bin Bakr, all five of them from Ibn Jurayj, who said, Sulayman bin Musa told us, who said, Malik bin Yakhamir told us, that Muaz bin Jabal told them that he heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say... and he mentioned the hadith. The wording given is that of Nasai.Its chain is hasan on account of Sulayman bin Musa, who is the one called Ashdaqq, for he is hasan al-hadith, and his hearing from Malik bin Yakhamir is established, as shown in the narration of the group. Tirmidhi said, "This is a hasan sahih hadith." Hakim said, "This is a sahih hadith meeting the criterion of Muslim, though the two of them did not include it."Abu Ishaq Ibrahim bin Muhammad Fazari differed from this group, narrating it from Ibn Jurayj, from Sulayman bin Musa, from Abdullah bin Malik bin Yakhamir, from his father, from Muaz. His narration was recorded by Ibn Hibban (3185) and Bayhaqi (9/170) through Muhammad bin Abdul-Rahman bin Sahm Antaki, from him, in abridged form.Daraqutni said, "Abu Ishaq Fazari alone transmitted it this way. If he preserved it correctly, then he has related something unusual, for I do not know of anyone who narrated it from Abu Ishaq in this manner except Muhammad bin Abdul-Rahman bin Sahm Antaki." End of quote, from Ilal Daraqutni (6/53).I say, this Antaki was mentioned by Ibn Hibban in his Thiqat (9/87), where he said, "He sometimes erred." Khatib said in his Tarikh (2/310), "Trustworthy."The narration of the group is more likely to be correct, especially since all of them affirmed that Sulayman bin Musa heard directly from Malik bin Yakhamir. This refutes anyone who claims there is a break in the chain. And Allah knows best.Abu Dawud (2541) also narrated it through Baqiya bin Walid, from Ibn Thawban, from his father, tracing back to Makhul, to Malik bin Yakhamir, that Muaz bin Jabal told them, and he related something similar.Zayd bin Yahya bin Ubayd differed from Baqiya, narrating it from Ibn Thawban, from his father, from Makhul, from Kathir bin Mura, from Malik bin Yakhamir, from Muaz bin Jabal, adding Kathir bin Mura into the chain. His narration is found in Ahmad (22110) and Ibn Hibban (3191, 4618).The correct view is that the statement of Zayd bin Yahya is to be followed, for he has a stronger memory than Baqiya, and Baqiya is also characterized by tadlis, and here he used the ambiguous form "an" (from) rather than an explicit statement of direct hearing.This chain is hasan on account of Ibn Thawban, that is, Abdul-Rahman bin Thabit bin Thawban, for there is disagreement about him, though he is hasan al-hadith.The hadith has other paths of transmission as well, but the ones I have mentioned are the most sahih of them.