“Its chain of transmission is authentic according to Muslim’s criteria, though neither of the two recorded it; and ʿAbd Allah ibn Wahb ibn Zamʿah is well known.” Al-Dhahabī objected to this, saying: “Only Ibn Mājah narrated from him. Moreover, this is a second error on al-Ḥākim’s part, for Ibn Zamʿah did not narrate from Tamīm al-Dārī; the correct name is ʿAbd Allah ibn Mawhab.”
I say: Since he is trustworthy—as has preceded from al-Ḥāfiẓ, and as al-Dhahabī similarly says in al-Kāshif: “Truthful”—and since his having heard from Tamīm has been established in the preceding narrations, the chain is authentic, or at the very least good. There is therefore no basis for declaring it defective due to a break in the chain, on the grounds of his unqualified “from” transmission or of some narrators inserting Qabīṣah between him and Tamīm. As you have seen, that is a narration at variance with that of the group; moreover, Ibn Mawhab was not accused of concealment in transmission, so the presumption is that his narration is connected—especially when he explicitly affirmed having heard it. When his narration is combined with the hadith of Abū Umāmah through Muʿāwiyah, the hadith rises to the rank of authenticity. And Allah knows best.
- As for the hadith of Rāshid, al-Aḥwaṣ ibn Ḥakīm narrates it from him with the same wording, adding: “He inherits from him and bears the blood-money liability on his behalf.” Saʿīd ibn Manṣūr transmitted it (no. 601). Al-Aḥwaṣ had weak retention, so his report may be cited as corroborating evidence.
A report from ʿUmar, may Allah be pleased with him, conveys the same meaning: A man came to ʿUmar and said, “A man accepted Islam through me, then died and left behind a thousand dirhams. I was apprehensive about taking it, so I brought it to you.” He said, “Tell me: if he had committed an offense, who would have borne the liability for it?” He replied, “I would.” He said, “Then his inheritance belongs to you.” Ibn Abī Shaybah transmitted it (11/409/11623) with a weak chain of transmission.