Muslim 3773

Both of them (Bukhari and Muslim) reported together the hadith of Qatada, from Nadr bin Anas, from Bashir, from Abu Hurairah, "Whoever frees a share..." and mentioned in it the gradual earning of freedom (through work), from the narration of Ibn Abu Aruba and Jareer bin Hazim, . Bukhari said that Hajjaj bin Hajjaj, Aban, and Musa bin Khalaf followed them both in narrating from Qatada. He said, this hadith was also narrated by Shuba and Hisham, who are more reliable than others who narrated from Qatada, and neither of them mentioned the gradual earning of freedom in the hadith. Hammam agreed with them but separated the mention of gradual earning from the hadith, making it a matter of Qatada's own statement rather than the wording, "No," from the hadith of Abu Hurairah from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family. This is what Thary related from Hammam, and what Muaz related from Hisham, and Ibn Amir from Hisham, and this is closer to being correct.

Hafiz, may Allah have mercy on him, said in Fath al-Bari, volume 5, page 158, Taba edition, after mentioning those who ruled that it was the statement of Qatada, while others rejected that, among them the two compilers of the Sahih, who judged the whole of it to be a raised hadith. This is what Ibn Daqiq Eid and a group of others preferred, because Saeed bin Abu Aruba was more knowledgeable about the hadith of Qatada due to his extensive companionship with him and his extensive learning from him, more than Hammam and others, and Hisham and Shuba, even though the latter two were more precise in memory than Saeed. However, they did not contradict what he narrated, they simply confined themselves to only part of the hadith. The gathering was not a single occasion such that one should hesitate over Saeed's addition, for Saeed's companionship with Qatada was greater than theirs, so he heard from him what others did not hear.All of this would apply if Saeed had narrated it alone, but Saeed was not alone in narrating it. Nasai said, regarding the hadith of Qatada from Abu Malih on this topic, after presenting the disagreement over it, that Hisham and Saeed are more reliable regarding Qatada than Hammam. The criticism directed at Saeed's hadith, namely that he became confused in his memory or that he narrated it alone, is rejected, because it is found in the Sahihayn and elsewhere through the narration of those who heard from him before his confusion set in, such as Yazid bin Zuray, and four others already mentioned agreed with him on it, along with others whom we will not lengthen the discussion by naming.Hammam is the one who alone gave the detailed account, and he differed from everyone else regarding the portion that was agreed upon as being a raised hadith, for he made it a specific incident, while they made it a general ruling. This indicates that he did not preserve it as precisely as he should have.Up to where Hafiz said, What appears clear is that the two hadiths are both sahih and both raised, in agreement with the practice of the two compilers of the Sahih.Ibn Mawwaq said, Fairness requires that we not accuse the group of error based on a single report, given the possibility that Qatada was heard issuing a legal opinion on the matter. There is no contradiction between his narrating it as a hadith on one occasion and his giving a legal opinion on it on another.Then Hafiz said, I say, this is supported by the fact that Bayhaqi transmitted, through the route of Uzai from Qatada, that he issued a legal opinion to that effect.