Al-Dāraqutnī recorded this report through the route of Aḥmad ibn Manṣūr ibn Rāshid, who said: “Rawḥ ibn ʿUbāda narrated to us; Ibn Jurayj narrated to us, saying: Ḥabīb ibn Abī Thābit informed me from ʿĀṣim…”—with the same wording.

This recension, however, is anomalous, for Aḥmad ibn Manṣūr stands alone against all the reliable transmitters who relate from Rawḥ ibn ʿUbāda. Every one of them says: from Rawḥ, “Ibn Jurayj narrated to us from Ḥabīb,” without explicitly stating that he heard it from him. Their silent-on-hearing version therefore takes precedence over Aḥmad ibn Manṣūr’s solitary and anomalous wording—especially since the man himself is not known for exact memorization and precision in transmission. The most that has been said about him, as reported by Abū Ḥātim in Tārīkh Baghdād, is that he is “truthful,” and a truthful narrator can still err.

ʿAbd Allāh ibn Imām Aḥmad also included the ḥadīth in the Musnad of his father, saying: “ʿUbayd Allāh ibn ʿUmar al-Qawārīrī narrated to me; Yazīd Abū Khālid al-Baysarī al-Qurashī narrated to us; Ibn Jurayj narrated to us, saying: Ḥabīb ibn Abī Thābit informed me from ʿĀṣim…”

This chain, though, is weak on the part of Ibn Jurayj, because this Abū Khālid—about whom Ibn Ḥazm remarked, “No one knows who he is,”—is classed as “unknown” by al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar in al-Taʿjīl.

As for al-Dhahabī’s note in al-Mīzān—“Ibn ʿAdī cited him and spoke well of him, saying: ‘His ḥadīth is not objectionable’”—that is not an explicit endorsement of reliability.