Ibn Ḥajar remarks in his commentary on al-Tirmidhī: “A manuscript copy of this work is preserved in the Maḥmūdiyya Library in Madinah under catalogue number 168.”

He explains that al-Tirmidhī is the sole compiler to record this report of Anas, and that he deemed it ḥasan only because Muḥammad ibn Jaʿfar corroborated ʿAbd Allāh ibn Jaʿfar. Had the latter stood alone, the ḥadith would be weak, for—as the author has already cited—Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn said of him, “He is nothing.” Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī judged him “extremely objectionable in his narrations,” al-Nasāʾī declared him “abandoned in ḥadith,” al-Fallās called him “weak in ḥadith,” and al-Dāraquṭnī noted that he “relates many anomalous reports.” Abū Ḥātim further observed, “He would err in the reports, presenting them inverted, and he misquoted traditions until they seemed upside-down.” Ibn ʿAdī stated, “Most of his narrations find no one to support them; yet, despite his weakness, his ḥadith is written down.” The author of al-Mīzān concluded, “There is unanimous agreement that he is weak.” End of quotation.

Ibn Ḥajar therefore affirms that al-Tirmidhī rated the report ḥasan solely because ʿAbd Allāh ibn Jaʿfar was not alone; Muḥammad ibn Jaʿfar ibn Abī Kathīr supported him in transmitting it.