Jami' at-Tirmidhi
Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1868
حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مُوسَى، مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الْمُثَنَّى حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو دَاوُدَ الطَّيَالِسِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ مُرَّةَ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ زَاذَانَ، يَقُولُ سَأَلْتُ ابْنَ عُمَرَ عَمَّا نَهَى عَنْهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم مِنَ الأَوْعِيَةِ أَخْبِرْنَاهُ بِلُغَتِكُمْ وَفَسِّرْهُ لَنَا بِلُغَتِنَا . فَقَالَ نَهَى رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم عَنِ الْحَنْتَمَةِ وَهِيَ الْجَرَّةُ وَنَهَى عَنِ الدُّبَّاءِ وَهِيَ الْقَرْعَةُ وَنَهَى عَنِ النَّقِيرِ وَهُوَ أَصْلُ النَّخْلِ يُنْقَرُ نَقْرًا أَوْ يُنْسَحُ نَسْحًا وَنَهَى عَنِ الْمُزَفَّتِ وَهِيَ الْمُقَيَّرُ وَأَمَرَ أَنْ يُنْبَذَ فِي الأَسْقِيَةِ . قَالَ وَفِي الْبَابِ عَنْ عُمَرَ وَعَلِيٍّ وَابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ وَأَبِي سَعِيدٍ وَأَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ وَعَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ يَعْمُرَ وَسَمُرَةَ وَأَنَسٍ وَعَائِشَةَ وَعِمْرَانَ بْنِ حُصَيْنٍ وَعَائِذِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو وَالْحَكَمِ الْغِفَارِيِّ وَمَيْمُونَةَ . قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ صَحِيحٌ .
Unreviewed translation. All hadiths in this collection are available in five languages. Titles and introductions may remain in Arabic.
Abu Musa Muhammad ibn al-Muthanna narrated to us: Abu Dawud al-Tayalisi narrated to us: Shu‘bah narrated to us, from ‘Amr ibn Murrah, who said: I heard Zadhan say: I asked Ibn ‘Umar about the vessels that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) had forbidden and said, “Tell us in your language and explain it to us in our language.” He replied: The Messenger of Allah forbade the hantamah, which is a jar; the dubba’, which is a gourd; the naqir, which is a date-palm trunk that is hollowed out or scraped; and the muzaffat, which is coated with pitch. He ordered that nabidh be prepared in waterskins.
He said: Reports on this topic are also related from ‘Umar, ‘Ali, Ibn ‘Abbas, Abu Sa‘id, Abu Hurayrah, ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Ya‘mur, Samurah, Anas, ‘A’ishah, ‘Imran ibn Husayn, ‘A’idh ibn ‘Amr, al-Hakam al-Ghifari, and Maymunah. Abu ‘Isa said: This hadith is hasan sahih.
Notes and open questions — unreviewed
The English witness renders the language phrase as a report about how Ibn ‘Umar explained the names. The Arabic may instead be read as a request to tell the names in one language and explain them in the other; the rendering above follows that direct-request sense, but the speech boundary and pronouns are not explicit. Vessel names are transliterated alongside the source's own explanations.
حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مُوسَى،
The English witness omits the full source isnad.
Please review the chain supplied from Arabic.
يَقُولُ سَأَلْتُ ابْنَ عُمَرَ عَمَّا نَهَى عَنْهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم مِنَ الأَوْعِيَةِ أَخْبِرْنَاهُ بِلُغَتِكُمْ وَفَسِّرْهُ لَنَا بِلُغَتِنَا .
The Arabic does not mark the speech boundary clearly in this clause; the English witness treats it as an explanation by Ibn Umar, while it can be read as a request by Zadhan.
Should this clause be punctuated as Zadhan asking Ibn Umar to explain the vessels using the two languages?