Jami' at-Tirmidhi
Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2056
حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدَةُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْخُزَاعِيُّ، قال حَدَّثَنَا مُعَاوِيَةُ بْنُ هِشَامٍ، عَنْ سُفْيَانَ، عَنْ عَاصِمٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ الْحَارِثِ، عَنْ أَنَسٍ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم رَخَّصَ فِي الرُّقْيَةِ مِنَ الْحُمَةِ وَالْعَيْنِ وَالنَّمْلَةِ . حَدَّثَنَا مَحْمُودُ بْنُ غَيْلاَنَ، قال حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ آدَمَ، وَأَبُو نُعَيْمٍ قَالاَ حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ، عَنْ عَاصِمٍ الأَحْوَلِ، عَنْ يُوسُفَ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ الْحَارِثِ، عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم رَخَّصَ فِي الرُّقْيَةِ مِنَ الْحُمَةِ وَالنَّمْلَةِ . قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى وَهَذَا عِنْدِي أَصَحُّ مِنْ حَدِيثِ مُعَاوِيَةَ بْنِ هِشَامٍ عَنْ سُفْيَانَ . قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى وَفِي الْبَابِ عَنْ بُرَيْدَةَ وَعِمْرَانَ بْنِ حُصَيْنٍ وَجَابِرٍ وَعَائِشَةَ وَطَلْقِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ وَعَمْرِو بْنِ حَزْمٍ وَأَبِي خُزَامَةَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ .
Unreviewed translation. All hadiths in this collection are available in five languages. Titles and introductions may remain in Arabic.
‘Abdah ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Khuza‘i narrated to us; Mu‘awiyah ibn Hisham narrated to us, from Sufyan, from ‘Asim, from ‘Abd Allah ibn al-Harith, from Anas: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) granted permission for ruqyah in cases of venomous bites or stings, the evil eye, and al-namlah.
Mahmud ibn Ghaylan narrated to us; Yahya ibn Adam and Abu Nu‘aym narrated to us; they said: Sufyan narrated to us, from ‘Asim al-Ahwal, from Yusuf ibn ‘Abd Allah ibn al-Harith, from Anas ibn Malik: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) granted permission for ruqyah in cases of venomous bites or stings and al-namlah. Abu ‘Isa said: In my view, this is more accurate than the hadith of Mu‘awiyah ibn Hisham from Sufyan. Abu ‘Isa said: There are reports on this topic from Buraydah, ‘Imran ibn Husayn, Jabir, ‘A’ishah, Talq ibn ‘Ali, ‘Amr ibn Hazm, and Abu Khuzamah, from his father.
Notes and open questions — unreviewed
Al-namlah is retained because the term may refer to a particular skin complaint and the block does not define it. The second route omits the evil eye mentioned in the first route; Abu ‘Isa prefers the second route as more accurate.
أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم رَخَّصَ فِي الرُّقْيَةِ مِنَ الْحُمَةِ وَالْعَيْنِ وَالنَّمْلَةِ .
The first route includes the evil eye, while the second omits it; the compiler considers the second route more accurate.
Should the two route wordings and the compiler’s preference both be preserved? They are translated separately.
The witness gives only a shortened second-chain summary and omits the compiler’s preference and list of related reports.
Should the full second route and compiler material be included? They are preserved from the Arabic.