and his son narrated it as mawqūf, so he preserved everything he heard. Thus, the ḥadīth is established as both marfūʿ and mawqūf, and the elevation is an addition, so it is the one relied upon. In my opinion, this is better than what al-Mundhirī said in "al-Targhīb" (3/212): "Aḥmad and al-Bayhaqī narrated it as marfūʿ in this way, and ʿAbd Allāh narrated it in his additions as mawqūf on Abū al-Dardāʾ, and its isnād is more authentic and more likely." He said this, and it is among the oddities, for the isnād of the mawqūf is the same as the isnād of the marfūʿ, and the only difference is between Aḥmad and his son. If it is necessary to prefer between their narrations, there is no doubt that Aḥmad's narration is more reliable because he is more precise, as previously mentioned. However, I see no justification for this with the possibility of reconciliation that I mentioned. It is astonishing that al-Munāwī quoted from al-Haythamī similar to what al-Mundhirī said regarding preference, as if he imitated him in that. And Allāh knows best. Then I found a corroborator for Aḥmad, as al-Bayhaqī extracted it in "al-Shuʿab" (2/95/2) through the path of ʿAbbās ibn Muḥammad al-Dūrī, who narrated to us from al-Haytham ibn Khārijah as marfūʿ.
وحدث ابنه موقوفا، فحفظ كل ما سمع. فالحديث ثابت مرفوعا وموقوفا والرفع زيادة فهو المعتمد وهذا في رأيي خير من قول المنذري في "الترغيب" (٣ / ٢١٢): "رواه أحمد والبيهقي مرفوعا هكذا ورواه عبد الله في زياداته موقوفا على أبي الدرداء وإسناده أصح وهو أشبه". كذا قال وهو من الغرائب، فإن إسناد الموقوف هو عين إسناد المرفوع وإنما الخلاف بين أحمد وابنه، فإذا كان لابد من الترجيح بين روايتيهما، فإن مما لا شك فيه أن رواية أحمد أرجح لأنه أحفظ كما سبق ولكني أرى أن لا مبرر لذلك مع إمكان الجمع الذي ذكرته. ومن العجيب أن المناوي نقل عن الهيثمي مثلما قال المنذري من الترجيح فكأنه قلده في ذلك. والله أعلم. ثم وجدت متابعا لأحمد أخرجه البيهقي في "الشعب" (٢ / ٩٥ / ٢) من طريق عباس بن محمد الدوري حدثنا الهيثم بن خارجة به مرفوعا.
"Whoever reaches his parents or one of them and then enters the Fire after that, may Allāh distance him and crush him." It was narrated by Imām Aḥmad (4/344, 5/29) from Shuʿbah, from Qatādah, who said: I heard Zurārah ibn Awfá narrating from Abū ibn Mālik from the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) that he said: and he mentioned it. It was also narrated by al-Ṭayālisī (1321): Shuʿbah narrated it without the phrase: "and crush him." I say: This isnād is authentic; its men are trustworthy, the men of the two Shaykhs, except for Abū ibn Mālik, who is a Companion, counted among the people of Basra. There is a difference of opinion regarding his name, with several views. The ḥāfiẓ preferred this one in the narration of Qatādah. Ibn Judʿān disagreed, as al-Ṭayālisī also said (1322): Shuʿbah narrated from ʿAlī ibn Zayd that Zurārah narrated from a man from his people called Mālik or Abū Mālik or Ibn Mālik from the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam), and he mentioned it with an addition, without the previous addition
"من أدرك والديه أو أحدهما ثم دخل النار من بعد ذلك فأبعده الله وأسحقه". أخرجه الإمام أحمد (٤ / ٣٤٤، ٥ / ٢٩) عن شعبة عن قتادة قال: سمعت زرارة ابن أوفى يحدث عن أبي بن مالك عن النبي ﷺ أنه قال: فذكره. وأخرجه الطيالسي (١٣٢١): حدثنا شعبة به دون قوله: "وأسحقه". قلت: وهذا إسناد صحيح رجاله ثقات رجال الشيخين غير أبي بن مالك وهو صحابي عداده في أهل البصرة وقد اختلف في اسمه على أقوال رجح الحافظ هذا الذي في رواية قتادة هذه وقد خالفه ابن جدعان، فقال الطيالسي أيضا (١٣٢٢): حدثنا شعبة عن علي بن زيد أن زرارة يحدث عن رجل من قومه يقال له: مالك أو أبو مالك أو ابن مالك عن النبي ﷺ فذكره بزيادة فيه دون الزيادة المتقدمة.