that Ibn Abī Ḥātim al-Rāzī said, “I heard from him together with my father, and he is ṣadūq (reliable).”
Likewise, al-Ḥāfiẓ (Ibn Ḥajar) states in al-Taqrīb that he is “ṣadūq.”
The rest of the transmitters in the chain are trustworthy and meet Muslim’s criterion.
From this it becomes clear that Ibn al-ʿArabī’s judgment—“the chain is weak”—is incorrect.

Abū Bakr al-Jaṣṣāṣ then said:
“Abū al-Zubayr stopped at Jābir (while al-Ḥasan transmitted it as marfūʿ), and it is quite possible that both versions are sound: Jābir may have traced it back to the Prophet on one occasion and, on another, issued a legal opinion based on it.”

I say: This reconciliation is sound, but one only turns to it when the narrator who makes it marfūʿ is a dependable authority in both transmission and retention. You have already seen that the marfūʿ report is plagued by two defects, whereas this mawqūf version is free of them; accordingly, the latter takes precedence.

A brief anecdote: Ibn al-ʿArabī said,
“I used to witness something remarkable in Damascus. The Umayyad Mosque had two gates—an eastern gate, Bāb Jīrūn, and a western gate—and people treated it as a thoroughfare, passing through all day in pursuit of their needs. Whenever a dhimmī wished to enter, he would stand at the gate until a Muslim passed by….”