Shaykh Adil Murshid et al.
(1) إسناده ضعيف، وقد وقع فيه عند المصنف وهمٌ أو سقطٌ من الناسخ، فإنَّ الحديث لا يعرف إلَّا من رواية عبد الله بن أمية بن أبي عثمان القرشي عن محمد بن حُيَي عن صفوان بن يعلى، ومحمد بن حيي هذا وهو ابن يعلى بن أمية - مجهول لم يرو عنه غير عبد الله بن أمية وجهله ابن المديني فيما نقله عنه الحافظ ابن رجب في كتابه "فتح الباري" 5/ 47، وتساهل ابن حبان كعادته فذكره في "ثقاته" 7/ 366.
Grading: (1) Its chain is weak.
Technical note / Defect ('illah): Here the author (al-Hakim) made an error, or something dropped out at the hand of the copyist, for this hadith is known only from the narration of 'Abd Allah bin Umayyah bin Abi 'Uthman al-Qurashi, from Muhammad bin Huyayy, from Safwan bin Ya'la. This Muhammad bin Huyayy, who is the son of Ya'la bin Umayyah, is "majhul" (unknown); no one narrated from him except 'Abd Allah bin Umayyah. Ibn al-Madini declared him unknown, as al-Hafiz Ibn Rajab reported from him in his "Fath al-Bari" 5/ 47, while Ibn Hibban was lenient, as was his habit, and mentioned him in his "al-Thiqat" 7/ 366.
وعبد الله بن أمية - وتسميته عبد الله بن أبي أمية من غرائب المصنف - انفرد بالرواية عنه أبو عاصم الضحاك بن مخلد، ونقل ابن أبي حاتم في "الجرح والتعديلط 5/ 8 توثيقه عن ابن معين، وذكره كذلك ابن حبان في "ثقاته". وأبو قِلابةَ - وهو عبد الملك بن محمد الرَّقاشي - صدوق لا بأس به، لكن ذكر الدارقطني أنه كان يحدِّث من حفظه فيَهِمُ، فلعلَّ ما وقع في الإسناد من سقط وتغيير في اسم عبد الله بن أمية من أوهامه، والله تعالى أعلم.
Technical note / Defect ('illah): As for 'Abd Allah bin Umayyah (the author's naming him "'Abd Allah bin Abi Umayyah" is one of his oddities), Abu 'Asim al-Dahhak bin Makhlad is alone in narrating from him. Ibn Abi Hatim reported in "al-Jarh wa al-Ta'dil" 5/ 8 that Ibn Ma'in declared him reliable, and Ibn Hibban likewise mentioned him in his "al-Thiqat". As for Abu Qilabah, who is 'Abd al-Malik bin Muhammad al-Raqashi, he is "saduq" (truthful), there is no harm in him, but al-Daraqutni mentioned that he used to narrate from memory and would make errors. So perhaps the omission in the chain and the change in the name of 'Abd Allah bin Umayyah are among his errors; and Allah the Exalted knows best.
وأخرجه أحمد 29/ (17960) عن أبي عاصم قال: حدثنا عبد الله بن أمية قال: حدثني محمد بن حُيي، قال: حدثني صفوان بن يعلى، عن أبيه، عن النبي ﷺ. وانظر تمام تخريجه هناك.
Reference / Source: Ahmad 29/ (17960) narrated it from Abu 'Asim, who said: 'Abd Allah bin Umayyah narrated to us, he said: Muhammad bin Huyayy narrated to me, he said: Safwan bin Ya'la narrated to me, from his father, from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). See its full takhrij there.
(1) إسناده ضعيف بمرَّة، أخرجه أبو داود في "سننه" (2489)، وانظر تمام تخريجه والكلام عليه في تعليقنا عليه هناك.
Grading: (1) Its chain is very weak.
Reference / Source: Abu Dawud narrated it in his "Sunan" (2489); see its full takhrij and the discussion of it in our annotation there.
وروي نحوه عن عبد الله بن عمرو موقوفًا عليه من قوله فيما أخرجه ابن أبي شيبة 1/ 131، والبيهقي في "السنن" 4/ 334. وهو أصحُّ، ولعلَّ عبد الله بن عمرو إنما حمله عن أهل الكتاب من زاملتَيهِ اللتين وجدهما يوم اليرموك، والله أعلم.
Corroborating chains and supporting reports: Something similar has been narrated from 'Abd Allah bin 'Amr as mawquf, as his own saying, in what Ibn Abi Shaybah 1/ 131 and al-Bayhaqi in "al-Sunan" 4/ 334 narrated.
Grading: And this (mawquf narration) is more correct.
Technical note / Defect ('illah): Perhaps 'Abd Allah bin 'Amr took it from the People of the Book, from the two camel-loads (of books) that he found on the day of Yarmuk; and Allah knows best.
Source: Al-Mustadrak ala al-Sahihayn (Takhrij & Tahqiq: Shaykh Adil Murshid et al.), Page: 8977