“Allah has forbidden wine, gambling, the kūbah (a drum), al-ghubayrāʾ, and every intoxicant is unlawful.”

The ḥadīth reaches us through three chains:

1. The first route is via al-Walīd ibn ʿUbdah—some say ʿAmr ibn al-Walīd ibn ʿUbdah—with the same wording.
   It was recorded by Abū Dāwūd 3685; al-Ṭaḥāwī in Sharḥ al-Maʿānī 2/325; al-Bayhaqī 10/221–222; Aḥmad 2/158 and 170 and in al-Ashribah 207; Yaʿqūb al-Fasawī in al-Maʿrifah 2/519; Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr in al-Tamhīd 5/167; and al-Mizzī in Tahdhīb 31/45–46. All of them transmit it through Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq, Ibn Luhayʿah, and ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd ibn Jaʿfar, the three of whom report from Yazīd ibn Abī Ḥabīb who, in turn, reports from him.

   The first of those narrators (Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq) named him al-Walīd ibn ʿUbdah, whereas the other two named him ʿAmr ibn al-Walīd ibn ʿUbdah. The latter is the more likely identification, as Shaykh Aḥmad Shākir—may Allah have mercy on him—demonstrated in his commentary on the Musnad 9/241, saying: “When two narrators concur on a name, that is nearer to accuracy than a solitary report; refer to it.”

   Moreover, even were Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq to have stated the ḥadīth with an explicit, ‘I heard,’ his report would still not serve as conclusive proof when it conflicts with others—so how much less when he has related it only by ʿanʿanah (omitting the direct statement of audition)?

   On this basis, what is the standing of ʿAmr ibn al-Walīd? Al-Dhahabī’s comment in al-Mīzān, “No one transmitted from him except Yazīd ibn Abī Ḥabīb,” implies that he is majhūl (of unknown status).