Note / Clarification: The words between the square brackets dropped out of our manuscripts, while they are established in all the other narrations of the hadith.

Grading: The hadith is sahih, and this chain is "hasan" on account of Ibn Ishaq (Muhammad bin Ishaq bin Yasar al-Muttalibi, their client).
Technical note / Defect ('illah): But he erred in naming Safwan, the shaykh of Ata', calling him "Safwan bin Abd Allah bin Safwan". Al-Bukhari pointed to this in "al-Tarikh al-Kabir" (4/72), saying: "He is contradicted in this." Al-Tahawi also pointed it out in "Sharh al-Mushkil" after hadith (1295), explaining it by saying: "This is an unmistakable error, because Safwan bin Abd Allah bin Safwan is a man of Quraysh from Banu Jumah, while Ya'la, the narrator of this hadith, is not himself of Quraysh; he is only an ally of theirs…" We say: The contradiction al-Bukhari meant is that more than one narrator narrated this hadith from Ata' bin Abi Rabah, saying in it "from Safwan bin Ya'la bin Umayyah, from his father". Al-Mizzi said in "Tahdhib al-Kamal" (11/266): "This is the mahfuz (preserved) version."

Reference / Source: Ahmad (29/17953) narrated it through the route of Ibrahim bin Sa'd; Ibn Majah (2656) through the route of Abd al-Rahim bin Sulayman; and al-Nasa'i (6941) through the route of Ahmad bin Khalid al-Wahbi. All three of them narrate it from Muhammad bin Ishaq, with this chain. And Ahmad (17949 and 17966), al-Bukhari (2265, 2973, 4417 and 6893), Muslim (1674), Abu Dawud (4584), al-Nasa'i (6943-6945) and Ibn Hibban (5997) narrated it through the route of Ibn Jurayj; Ahmad (17954) through the route of Qatadah bin Di'amah; al-Bukhari (1848), Muslim (1674) and Ibn Hibban (6000) through the route of Hammam bin Yahya; and Muslim (1674) and al-Nasa'i (6947) through the route of Budayl bin Maysarah. All four of them narrate it from Ata' bin Abi Rabah, from Safwan bin Ya'la bin Umayyah, from his father.

Note / Clarification: "Al-'aql" means the blood money (diyah), and also the compensation for injuries (arush al-jinayat), i.e. the payment for damage to anything short of a life.

Note / Clarification: In our manuscripts it reads "wa-qatala" (and he killed), which is a mistake. It may be a corruption of "falla", i.e. "he broke". Allah knows best.

Note / Clarification: The adopted reading is taken from al-Dhahabi's "Talkhis" and from the Mahmudiyyah manuscript (as in the al-Mayman edition).

Important point: The story of Mu'adh bin Amr bin al-Jamuh striking Abu Jahl has been narrated from Ibn Abbas, from Mu'adh himself, with a "hasan chain" by Ibn Ishaq (as in "Sirat Ibn Hisham" 1/634). But in it, Mu'adh struck him on his foot and cut it off; it is not that he was the one who killed him.

Important point: However, in "Sahih al-Bukhari" (3141) and "Sahih Muslim" (1752) it is narrated from Abd al-Rahman bin Awf that Mu'adh bin Amr bin al-Jamuh and Mu'adh bin Afra' both rushed at Abu Jahl with their swords and struck him until they killed him. Then they went to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and informed him. He said: "Which of you killed him?" Each of them said: I killed him. He said: "Have you wiped your swords?" They said: No. He looked at the two swords and said: "Both of you killed him; his spoils (salab) go to Mu'adh bin Amr bin al-Jamuh." Ibn Hajar quoted in "al-Fath" (9/454) the statement of al-Isma'ili: One of them struck first and put him in the state of one immobilized by his wounds, until the second one's blow landed on him, so they shared in the killing. But one of them struck him while he was still able to resist, and the other struck him when he was already immobilized; that is why the spoils were awarded to the one who first disabled him.