Ahmad 2166

Its chain of transmission is sahih. Imran bin Hakam, this is how it appears in the two original manuscripts, and in fact it is an old error found in the manuscripts of the Musnad. I think the mistake goes back to Abdul-Rahman bin Mahdi or Sufyan Thawri. In Tajil, page 319, it says, "This is how it appears, but the correct form is Imran bin Harith Abu Hakam, as in Sahih Muslim and elsewhere," meaning in another hadith, since this particular hadith is not found in Sahih Muslim. It appears that the original narration is from Imran Abu Hakam, and among the narrators whose biographies we have examined, there is none named Imran bin Hakam.As for Imran bin Harith, his reliability was already established at 185. He was a Kufan successor and a trustworthy narrator. In Jarh wat-Tadil, 3/1/296, Abu Hatim said of him, "His hadith is acceptable."Ibn Kathir mentioned this hadith in his history, volume 3, page 52, and said, "Its chain is good, though it contains Imran bin Hakam." He added, "It was narrated by Ahmad, Ibn Mardawayh, and Hakim in his Mustadrak, from the hadith of Sufyan Thawri," through the same chain. This shows that the error is an old one present in the copies of the Musnad. It also appears in the Mustadrak, 2:314, through the route of Sufyan Thawri, and there too it says Imran bin Hakam. This indicates that the mistake originates from one of the narrators, not from the copying of the manuscripts. Hakim said, "This is a sahih hadith according to the criteria of Muslim, though the two of them did not include it," and Dhahabi agreed with him.A hadith with the same meaning will come later through another chain from Ibn Abbas, at 2333.