Ahmad 5716

Its isnad is sahih. Saeed bin Abdul-Rahman bin Waailah Ansari was covered by Bukhari in [Tarikh] Kabir 2/1/453, in the chapter on those named Saeed. He said, Saeed bin Abdul-Rahman bin Waail Ansari, from Abdullah bin Abdullah bin Umar. This was reported by Yunus bin Muhammad and Aqdi, from Fulayh bin Sulayman. He is counted among the people of Hijaz.Its editor, the eminent scholar Sheikh Abdul-Rahman Yamani, noted in his footnote something indicating that this entry is also established in Kitab al-Thiqat by Ibn Hibban and the book of Ibn Abu Hatim, both of which arrange their entries alphabetically in chapters. So these are three reliable reference works, each mentioning him in the chapter on those named Saeed.In the three original manuscripts here, the name appears as "Saad," with the ya omitted and without diacritical marking. We therefore gave preference to the form that is established with clear diacritical marking, and corrected it to "Saeed," on the view that what appears in the original manuscripts is an oversight or error made by some of the early copyists. This man was not covered in Tahdhib or its derivative works, nor was he covered in Tajil either, neither under the name Saad nor under the name Saeed, so this should be noted as an omission needing correction.Abdullah bin Abdullah bin Umar, his reliability was already established at 4458. In manuscript K, it appears as Ubaydullah bin Abdullah bin Umar, which is what is found in the book of Ibn Abu Hatim, as quoted by the editor of Tarikh al-Kabir in the footnote to the entry on Saeed bin Abdul-Rahman. Ubaydullah bin Abdullah, his reliability was already established at 4615. Whichever it is, the isnad is sahih, since both of them are trustworthy.The hadith, in its meaning, is repeated at 4787, 5390, and 5391.