(Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Qazzāz—who reports from Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh, and from whom al-Darāwardī transmits—is unknown). It is therefore possible that he is the very same man (1).

Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid (4/5) states: “It was related by Aḥmad, Abū Yaʿlā, and al-Bazzār, and in its isnād is ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī al-Zinād, who is weak.”

I say: He is not the only one to transmit it, for al-Ṭaḥāwī (2/72) also recorded it through the route of Ḥassān b. Ghālib, who said: “Yaʿqūb b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān narrated to us from Mūsā b. ʿUqbah—Abū ʿAbd Allāh conveyed it to me.” Yet this Ḥassān is weak, as noted earlier.

Al-Ṭaḥāwī gives another chain for the report: from Shuʿbah, from Abū ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Zubaydī, from ʿAmr b. al-Ḥakam, from Saʿd, as a marfūʿ narration. All its transmitters are reliable except Abū ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Zubaydī, whom I have not been able to identify.

I then consulted the Kunya section of Kashf al-Astār ʿan Rijāl Maʿānī al-Āthār and found: “Abū ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Rabadhī—with an open rāʾ, followed by a bāʾ and then a dotted letter—is Mūsā b. ʿUbaydah—pronounced with a ḍamma at the beginning—and he is weak.”

It thus becomes clear that the reading al-Zubaydī in the original is a scribal error; the correct form is al-Rabadhī. Likewise, the text gives the name as ʿAmr b. al-Ḥakam, whereas the correct name is ʿUmar—spelled without the wāw and with a ḍamma on the undotted letter.