Al-Adab Al-Mufrad
Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 1065
حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ سَلاَمٍ، قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنَا مَخْلَدٌ، قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ جُرَيْجٍ قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنِي عَطَاءٌ، عَنْ عُبَيْدِ بْنِ عُمَيْرٍ، أَنَّ أَبَا مُوسَى الأَشْعَرِيَّ اسْتَأْذَنَ عَلَى عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ، فَلَمْ يُؤَذَنْ لَهُ، وَكَأَنَّهُ كَانَ مَشْغُولاً، فَرَجَعَ أَبُو مُوسَى، فَفَرَغَ عُمَرُ فَقَالَ: أَلَمْ أَسْمَعْ صَوْتَ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ قَيْسٍ؟ إِيذَنُوا لَهُ، قِيلَ: قَدْ رَجَعَ، فَدَعَاهُ، فَقَالَ: كُنَّا نُؤْمَرُ بِذَلِكَ، فَقَالَ: تَأْتِينِي عَلَى ذَلِكَ بِالْبَيِّنَةِ، فَانْطَلَقَ إِلَى مَجْلِسِ الأَنْصَارِ فَسَأَلَهُمْ، فَقَالُوا: لاَ يَشْهَدُ لَكَ عَلَى هَذَا إِلاَّ أَصْغَرُنَا: أَبُو سَعِيدٍ الْخُدْرِيُّ فَذَهَبَ بِأَبِي سَعِيدٍ، فَقَالَ عُمَرُ: أَخَفِيَ عَلَيَّ مِنْ أَمْرِ رَسُولِ اللهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم؟ أَلْهَانِي الصَّفْقُ بِالأَسْوَاقِ، يَعْنِي الْخُرُوجَ إِلَى التِّجَارَةِ.
Unreviewed translation. All hadiths in this collection are available in five languages. Titles and introductions may remain in Arabic.
Ubayd ibn Umayr reported that Abu Musa al-Ashari sought permission to enter upon Umar ibn al-Khattab, but permission was not granted; Umar seemed to be occupied. Abu Musa went back. When Umar was free, he said, “Did I not hear the voice of Abdullah ibn Qays? Let him in.” They said, “He has gone back.” Umar sent for him. Abu Musa said, “We were instructed to do that.” Umar said, “Bring me proof of it.” Abu Musa went to the gathering of the Ansar and asked them. They said, “Only the youngest among us can testify to this: Abu Said al-Khudri.” He brought Abu Said with him. Umar said, “Was something of the Messenger of Allah’s teaching hidden from me? The buying and selling in the markets distracted me”—meaning his going out to trade.
Notes and open questions — unreviewed
The report does not specify here how many times permission had been sought; the witness’s parenthetical “three times” is explanatory.
كُنَّا نُؤْمَرُ بِذَلِكَ
The Arabic simply says “we were instructed to do that”; the number three is not stated in this wording.
Should the witness’s parenthetical detail be omitted or retained as an explanatory gloss?