This, then, amounts to a serious inconsistency; because of it the researcher cannot confidently give preference to one version over another. Such instability is enough to render the ḥadīth weak, for it signals that the narration was not accurately preserved, as the scholars of ḥadīth methodology have explained.

Ibn Ḥajar states in his commentary on al-Bukhārī:
“Al-Bukhārī himself declared it weak in al-Tārīkh on account of the confusion in its chain, and I have cited many of its routes in Taghlīq al-Taʿlīq.”

I add: Ibn al-Qaṭṭān likewise declared it weak. Al-Zaylaʿī records in Nasb al-Rāyah that Ibn al-Qaṭṭān said:
“Jarhad’s ḥadīth is blemished by two defects. The first is the inconsistency that voids its credibility: some narrators call the transmitter Zurʿah ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, others Zurʿah ibn ʿAbd Allāh, and yet others Zurʿah ibn Muslim. Among them, some relate it as ‘from his father, from the Prophet ﷺ,’ others as ‘from his father, from Jarhad, from the Prophet ﷺ,’ and others as ‘Zurʿah, from the household of Jarhad, from Jarhad, from the Prophet ﷺ.’
The second defect is that both Zurʿah and his father are of unknown status and not noted for ḥadīth transmission.”

From this it is clear that al-Ḥākim’s verdict—“Its chain is sound”—is incorrect, even though al-Dhahabī endorsed it.

Third: the ḥadīth of Muḥammad ibn Jaḥsh. It was transmitted in marfūʿ form by Abū Kathīr, the freedman of Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Jaḥsh.