Ahmad 4588

Its isnad is sahih. Amr, the teacher of Sufyan, is Ibn Dinar. In H it says Umar, which is an error, corrected from K.Abu Abbas is the blind poet of Makkah, whose name was Saaib bin Faruq. He was a trustworthy tabii, deemed reliable by Ahmad, Ibn Main, and Nasai, and the authors of the six books narrated from him.Bukhari related the hadith in 8:36 from Ibn Madini, in 10:419 from Qutayba bin Saeed, and in 13:279 from Abdullah bin Muhammad, all three from Sufyan bin Uyayna, with this isnad. Muslim related it in 2:62 from Abu Bakr bin Abu Shayba, Zuhayr bin Harb, and Ibn Numayr, all of them from Sufyan.Hafiz mentioned in Fath al-Bari 8:136 the disagreement over whether this hadith is from Abdullah bin Umar bin Khattab or Abdullah bin Amr bin As. He said, in the narration of Kashmihani (one of the narrators of Sahih Bukhari), it is Abdullah bin Amr, with the ain having a fatha and the mim being sakin, and likewise it occurs in the narration of Nasafi and Asili (also among the narrators of Sahih Bukhari). It was read to Ibn Zayd Marwazi in that same way, but he rejected it, saying it should have the ain with a damma. Daraqutni mentioned the disagreement over it and said, the correct version is Abdullah bin Umar bin Khattab. The first is correct in the narration of Ali bin Madini, and likewise Humaydi and others among the memorizing companions of Ibn Uyayna. Tabarani also transmitted it in this way from the narration of Ibrahim bin Yasar, who was extremely devoted to Ibn Uyayna. Those who said, on the authority of Ibn Uyayna, Abdullah bin Umar were those who heard from him later, as if he had come to rely on Hakim.Humaydi went to great lengths to clarify this. In his Musnad, narrating this hadith from Sufyan, he said Abdullah bin Umar bin Khattab. Bayhaqi related it in Dalail through the route of Uthman Darimi from Ali bin Madini, who said, Sufyan narrated it to us more than once, saying Abdullah bin Umar bin Khattab, he never said Abdullah bin Amr bin As.Ibn Abu Shayba related it from Ibn Uyayna and said Abdullah bin Umar, just as Muslim related from him. Ismaili related it through another route from him, adding, Abu Bakr said, I heard Ibn Uyayna another time narrating it from Ibn Umar. Fadl Alai reported from Yahya bin Main, Abu Abbas narrated it from Abdullah bin Amr and Abdullah bin Umar, at Taif, but the correct version is Ibn Umar.Hafiz bin Kathir, in his Tarikh 4:350, pointed to the disagreement in the manuscripts of Bukhari and said, Muslim related it from the hadith of Sufyan bin Uyayna, with this same chain, and in his version it is Abdullah bin Umar bin Khattab. So the two Hafiz scholars, Ibn Kathir and Ibn Hajar, disagreed about what is established in Sahih Muslim. What is found in the Bulaq printing, the Istanbul printing, and two correct manuscript copies in my possession is Abdullah bin Amr. This is the version Nawawi discussed in his commentary 12:123, where he stated that this is how it appears in the manuscripts of Sahih Muslim. He also quoted from Qadi Iyad, this is how it is in the narration of Juludi and most of the people of the foundational sources from Ibn Mahan.Perhaps a copy or copies of Sahih Muslim reached Ibn Kathir in which it read Abdullah bin Umar. It is quite clear that none of them paid attention to the narration of Imam Ahmad given here, even though he was among the most retentive of the companions of Ibn Uyayna, if not the most retentive of them. His explicit and clear statement establishes that Ibn Uyayna was asked, "Ibn Amr?" meaning Ibn As, and he said, "No, Ibn Umar," meaning Ibn Khattab. This settles every disagreement and proves conclusively that whoever narrated it with the ain having a fatha made a serious error, whether that person narrated from Sufyan bin Uyayna himself, or came after them, or was among those who possess copies of the Sahihayn.The phrase "on anything" is an addition from K, and it is necessary to complete the sense. In J it reads, so the Muslims became, which is an error, corrected from K as well.