I say: It is this very statement of Abū Zurʿah that al-Ḥāfiẓ relied upon in al-Taqrīb, where he writes, “Trustworthy (ṣadūq); criticism concerns only his narrations from al-Aʿmash.”

Al-Haythamī, in al-Majmaʿ, after citing the report verbatim, remarks: “It was transmitted by al-Ṭabarānī, and in its chain is ʿAbd Allāh ibn Mughrāʾ. Ibn Ḥibbān and others declared him reliable, while Ibn al-Madīnī deemed him weak in what he narrates from al-Aʿmash, and this report is not among those.” (1)

Al-Suyūṭī, as quoted by al-Manāwī, says: “A firmly established ḥadīth: on Abū Zurʿah’s assessment, together with its corroborating chains, it is sound (ṣaḥīḥ); on Ibn ʿAdī’s assessment it is ḥasan.”

Accordingly, he marked it as ḥasan in al-Jāmiʿ, but al-Manāwī objected, citing al-Dhahabī’s words regarding al-Bayhaqī: “I say: this is a disapproved (munkar) report, reported only by ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Mughrāʾ, and he is not a proof.”

I respond: The correct view is that the ḥadīth is ḥasan, and declaring it munkar is unfounded. Al-Dhahabī himself has already said of Ibn Mughrāʾ that “there is nothing wrong with him,” as mentioned above. The least this judgment implies is that a report he transmits on his own is ḥasan. To state categorically that he is “not a proof” contradicts what is recorded in al-Mīzān. If one were to say that he is not a proof when he contradicts others, that would be true; but in this case he does not contradict anyone, so his report is ḥasan. Allah, the Most High, knows best.