It was recorded by Abū Dāwūd, al-Nasaʾī, al-Dāramī, Ibn Mājah, al-Ḥākim, al-Bayhaqī—who also gives the alternative wording—and Aḥmad—who relates the second version as well. All of them transmit it through the chain of Jaʿfar ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Ḥakam, from Tamīm ibn Muḥammad, from the Companion in question. Al-Ḥākim declared, “Its chain is sound (ṣaḥīḥ al-isnād),” and al-Dhahabī concurred.

Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Ḥibbān likewise included it in their respective Ṣaḥīḥ collections, as stated in al-Targhīb.

I say: its chain still appears questionable to me, for this very Tamīm is listed by al-Dhahabī himself in al-Mīzān, where he cites al-Bukhārī’s verdict: “His case requires scrutiny.” Al-ʿUqaylī, al-Dūlābī, and Ibn al-Jārūd also mention him among the weak narrators. As for Ibn Ḥibbān, he declared him trustworthy, which is his usual practice with narrators who are not widely known, for no one is reported to have transmitted from Tamīm except the aforementioned Jaʿfar ibn ʿAbd Allāh.

Al-Dhahabī’s further statement, “He was narrated from by ʿUthmān ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Ṭarāʾifī,” is plainly incorrect, for al-Ṭarāʾifī died in 202 or 203 AH. How, then, could he have received ḥadith from Tamīm, whom Ibn Ḥajar—placing him among the fourth generation of the Followers (tābiʿūn) in al-Taqrīb—describes as layyin (soft-graded, i.e., mildly weak)?

Nonetheless, the report gains strength from a corroborating narration that Aḥmad relates in his Musnad: