Saʿīd ibn Manṣūr, together with the two Ṭayālisīs—Abū Dāwūd and Abū al-Walīd—said:
“ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Mubārak abandoned him and warned: ‘Do not relate anything from him, for he used to revile the early generations.’ When the man’s funeral procession passed by, Ibn al-Mubārak turned away from it.”

ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Mahdī likewise dropped him. Ibn Maʿīn and al-Nasāʾī declared, “He is neither trustworthy nor reliable; his ḥadīth are not to be written.” On another occasion Ibn Maʿīn, Abū Zurʿah, and Abū Ḥātim said, “He is weak.” Abū Ḥātim added, “His views were unsound and he was an extreme partisan of the Shīʿah; his ḥadīth are not to be recorded.” Al-Bukhārī remarked, “According to them he is not strong.” Abū Dāwūd said, “He was among the worst of people—an evil Rāfiḍī, a wretched man,” and added, “When he died I did not perform the funeral prayer over him, because he used to say, ‘When the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him) passed away, everyone apostasized except five.’” Abū Dāwūd went on denouncing him.

Ibn Ḥibbān stated, “He relates forgeries from reliable narrators.” Ibn ʿAdī said, “The weakness of his ḥadīth is obvious,” and dated his death to 127 AH.

Hence our teacher Abū al-ʿAbbās Ibn Taymiyyah said, “ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḥasan and his father were far too eminent to have transmitted this ḥadīth.”

The compiler—hardly an impartial one—then said:

“As for the report of Abū Hurayrah: ʿAqīl ibn al-Ḥasan al-ʿAskarī informed us; Abū Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ ibn al-Fatḥ al-Nasāʾī informed us; Aḥmad ibn ʿUmayr ibn Jawṣāʾ narrated to us; Ibrāhīm ibn Saʿīd al-Jawharī narrated to us; Yaḥyā ibn Zayd ibn ʿAbd al-Malik al-Nawfalī, on the authority of his father, narrated to us; Dāwūd ibn Farāhīj narrated to us from ʿImārah ibn Burūd, from Abū Hurayrah.” He added, “I have abridged it from a longer narration.”

This chain is obscure: Yaḥyā ibn Zayd, his father, and their shaykh Dāwūd ibn Farāhīj are all weak. This is the very isnād to which Ibn al-Jawzī alluded when he said that Ibn Mardawayh transmitted the story through Dāwūd ibn Farāhīj from Abū Hurayrah; Dāwūd was declared weak by Shuʿbah, al-Nasāʾī, and others.

The most plausible conclusion is that the narration was fabricated by one of its transmitters, or crept into the transmission without the narrator’s awareness. God knows best.

He continued:

“As for the report of Abū Saʿīd: Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl al-Jurjānī recorded in his book that Abū Ṭāhir Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī the preacher informed them; Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn Mutayyam informed us; al-Qāsim ibn Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar ibn ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib informed us, saying: My father related to me from his father Muḥammad, from his father ʿAbd Allāh, from his father ʿUmar, who said: al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī said, ‘I heard Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī say: I entered upon the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him) while his head was in ʿAlī’s lap and the sun had set. The Prophet awoke and said, “O ʿAlī, have you prayed ʿAṣr?” He replied, “No, O Messenger of God, I have not prayed; I disliked removing your head from my lap while you were ill.” The Prophet said, “O ʿAlī, supplicate—O ʿAlī—that the sun be returned for you.” ʿAlī said, “O Messenger of God, you supplicate and I will say āmīn.” The Prophet then said, “O Lord, ʿAlī is engaged in obedience to You and to Your Prophet, so return the sun for him.” Abū Saʿīd continued, “By God, I heard the sun creak like the turning of a pulley until it came back, white and radiant.”’”

This chain too is obscure, and its text is irregular, contradicting the earlier versions. All of this shows that it is an invented, contrived report that these Rāfiḍīs pass among themselves. Had it genuinely gone back to Abū Saʿīd, his companions would have transmitted it from him