Ahmad 5125

Its isnad is sahih. Bakr bin Abdullah Muzani is a well-known, trustworthy successor, whose reliability was already established at 3495. Bishr bin Muhtafiz is a trustworthy successor, mentioned by Ibn Hibban in Thiqat, and he has no hadith other than this one. It says in Tahdhib, "From him, Qatada narrated, a reciter," and Shuba said, from Qatada. Abu Zura said, "I do not know him except through this hadith." Tahdhib marked him only with the symbol for Nasai, and the hadith appears in Nasai 2:297 through Shuba with this isnad.Tahdhib also states, "Hammam narrated from him," meaning from Qatada, "from Bishr bin Aidh," and in the entry for Bishr bin Aidh it says, "This is what Hammam said, from Qatada, from Bakr bin Abdullah and Bishr bin Aidh, from Ibn Umar, while Shuba said, from Qatada, from Bakr bin Abdullah and Bishr bin Muhtafiz, from Ibn Umar."I say, the speaker being Ibn Hajar, "It is possible that they are one and the same person, for I have seen him identified as Bishr bin Aidh bin Muhtafiz, and he too is marked with the symbol for Nasai, but I did not find him in Sunan Nasai transmitted through Hammam from Qatada." It will come later in the Musnad through his route at 5364.The possibility favored by Ibn Hajar is a plausible one, indeed it appears to be the most likely conclusion based on how Bukhari treated the matter in Tarikh al-Kabir 1/2/78-79, where he gave them a single entry, saying, "Bishr bin Aidh is counted among the Basrans. Adam told us, Shuba narrated to us, saying, Qatada narrated to me, Bakr bin Abdullah and Bishr bin Muhtafiz narrated to me, from Ibn Umar, from the Prophet ﷺ, concerning silk." Ibn Mahdi said, "Hammam narrated to us from Qatada, from Bakr and Bishr bin Aidh, from Ibn Umar, from the Prophet ﷺ." Abdul-Rahman bin Mubarak said, "Saq narrated to us from Qatada, from Ali Bariqi, from Ibn Umar, from the Prophet ﷺ." Abdul-Wahid bin Ghiyath said, "Hammad bin Salama narrated to us, saying, Sakin bin Khalid informed us from Mujahid, Umar appointed Bishr bin Muhtafiz over Sus." It is said that Bishr died long ago, so it seems unlikely that Qatada could have met him.The scholar Shaikh Abdul-Rahman bin Yahya Muallimi, the editor of Tarikh al-Kabir, commented on this entry, saying, "The author did not give Bishr bin Muhtafiz a separate entry, as though hinting at the possibility that he is the same as Ibn Aidh." He then quoted Ibn Hajar's words about the possibility that they are one and the same, and continued, "Ibn Abu Hatim and Ibn Hibban distinguished between them, and this appears clear from their describing Ibn Aidh as the reciter, and Ibn Muhtafiz as Muzani, and in Thiqat the lineage of Ibn Muhtafiz is traced to Mazina."I say, I did not find these two attributions in the references available to me, except that Muhtafiz bin Aws is described as Muzani in the entry of Isabah 6:46, and that Ibn Hibban traced his lineage to him in his own entry, as did Hakim in Tarikh Naysabur, in agreement with what is in Isabah, and in Usud Ghaba 3:305, "Muhtafiz bin Aws Muzani." As for the description of Bishr bin Aidh as a reciter, I did not find it. Rather, what will come in his narration at 5364 is "Bishr bin Aidh Hudhali," and I do not know whether this attribution of "Hudhali" is correct either, so perhaps it is a mistake or an error.What I consider most likely, based on how Bukhari handled it, is that the two narrators are one and the same person, which is the very possibility mentioned by Ibn Hajar in Tahdhib. Shuba's memory is far more reliable than Hammam's, but perhaps he did not know the man's lineage, or perhaps Qatada made an error, naming him "Bishr bin Muhtafiz" to one and "Bishr bin Aidh" to Hammam.As for Bukhari's report in Tarikh al-Kabir that Bishr bin Muhtafiz served as a governor under Umar, and his statement that he died long ago, making it unlikely that Qatada could have met him, none of this affects the conclusion, since it is quite possible that the elder Bishr bin Muhtafiz was the uncle of Bishr bin Aidh bin Muhtafiz, the one from whom Qatada actually narrated.In any case, the isnad is sahih, on account of Bakr bin Abdullah, and the text is sahih, having already been related through other sahih chains several times, both at length and in brief, most recently at 5095.Muhtafiz is spelled with a dammah on the mim, a sakin ha, a fatha on the ta, a kasrah on the fa, and ends with a dotted zay.