Ahmad 3166

Its isnad is sahih. Yahya Abu Umar is Yahya bin Ubayd Bahrani, whose reliability was already established at 1617. In manuscript H it reads "Yahya bin Umar," which is an error, we corrected it from manuscript K.In Tajil 445-446, the text states, "Yahya bin Abu Umar, from Ibn Abbas, and Hakam narrates from him, both are unknown." And it says in Ikmal, "It is not known who he is." I say [the speaker is Hafiz Ibn Hajar], no, rather both of them are known. What happened is that an addition of "bin" occurred in the copy, while what is in the original of the Musnad is "from Yahya Abu Umar," which is the kunya of Yahya himself. Hakam, who narrates from him, is Ibn Utayba, the well-known jurist.As for the hadith that Ahmad reported for him, he said [and he mentioned the text of the hadith found here]. Muslim reported it from Bundar, from Muhammad bin Jafar, with this isnad, but he did not mention Hakam in the isnad. Ahmad also reported, with this isnad, in the Musnad, a hadith that does not include Hakam, but in it he said, "Shuba, from Yahya Abu Umar, from Ibn Abbas." Likewise, Muslim and Nasai both reported it from Bundar, from Muhammad bin Jafar.Ahmad also reported it from Waki, from Shuba, from Yahya bin Ubayd, from Ibn Abbas [he means hadith 2068], and Yahya bin Ubayd is Abu Umar himself. It is also found with Ahmad from Abu Muawiya, from Amash, from Abu Umar, from Ibn Abbas. Muslim and Abu Dawud reported it via the route of Abu Muawiya.So this narrator came from Ahmad in three forms, "from Yahya Abu Umar," with the name and kunya together, "from Abu Umar," with the kunya only, and "from Yahya bin Ubayd," with the name only. He is Yahya bin Ubayd Abu Umar Bahrani, and he has a biographical entry in Tahdhib. Had the author [he means Muhammad bin Ali Husayni, the Hafiz] reviewed the original of the Musnad, the correct view would not have been hidden from him.This is a precise and thorough verification from Hafiz Ibn Hajar. The hadith is repeated at 3086.