as al-Manāwī himself makes plain in al-Fayḍ, and his symbolic markings are not to be relied upon, as we have repeatedly warned for reasons laid out in the Introduction—consult it if you wish. What lends further weight to this is that al-Suyūṭī explicitly declared this very ḥadith weak in al-Jāmiʿ al-Kabīr, where he uncovered its flaw and said—may Allah reward him: “In its chain is Ibrāhīm ibn Abī Ḥayyah, wāh (feeble).” That is to say, he is extremely weak, as I showed in Irwāʾ, 4/343, citing the leading authorities in criticism and appraisal.

Second: the author’s silence over the ḥadith creates the impression that it is authentic, whereas it is exceedingly weak, as I have just noted from al-Suyūṭī.

Third: there is another report conveying the same meaning, narrated by Abū al-Dardāʾ, whose isnād is in better condition than this one; al-Haythamī even remarked, “A ḥasan ḥadith.” It would have been more fitting for the compiler to cite that version instead, even though al-Mundhirī in his Targhīb and the ḥāfiẓ al-Nājī in his marginal notes, fol. 135/1, did not accept that grading, because the chain still contains one weak transmitter and another prone to error, as I clarified in Irwāʾ, 1130. Consequently the ḥadith remains weak and is not reinforced by al-Bayhaqī’s narration, owing to the latter’s extreme weakness, as you have seen.

As for al-Manāwī’s statement in al-Taysīr, following al-Bayhaqī’s report from Jābir—“and al-Ṭabarānī likewise transmits it from him with a ḥasan chain”—this is one of his slips, the result of haste in abridging al-Haythamī’s words. Al-Haythamī attributed that judgment to al-Ṭabarānī only for the report from Abū al-Dardāʾ and said of it, “a ḥasan ḥadith,” a verdict that, as noted above, has been challenged. Shaykh al-Ghumārī was taken in by this and cited it in his Kanz, 329/2061!