Apart from this chain, the ḥadith is also found in the Four Sunan, the Musnads, and other compilations; in those works there is a report of his that I authenticated in Silsilat al-Aḥādīth al-Ṣaḥīḥah (no. 1252) and elsewhere.

After al-ʿAdawī, another writer came along who merely echoed him, insisting on the charge of “severe weakness” because of the first two alleged defects while dropping the third—evidently realizing that it carried no weight and was not a genuine flaw. Yet he fabricated a new objection, even flimsier than that of the man he was imitating, claiming that ʿUbayd ibn Rafāʿah is “unknown,” and that no one declared him reliable except Ibn Ḥibbān and al-ʿAjlī. That person is al-ʿAnbarī, who wrote in his booklet (p. 16):

“It is obvious that their endorsement is lax and cannot be relied upon.”

Such were his words—may Allah set him right. The “laxity” he alleges is not unconditional; it applies only to accrediting a narrator who is known solely through one or two reports, as I have demonstrated elsewhere. ʿUbayd is not of that sort, for a number of trustworthy transmitters related from him, as you will see in Tahdhīb. Al-Dhahabī deemed him reliable in al-Talkhīs, and both al-Tirmidhī and al-Ḥākim authenticated a report of his. Beyond that, he is a Successor born during the Prophet’s lifetime—indeed, some even counted him among the Companions. How astonishing it is to witness these budding researchers, beguiled by their own opinions, so bold and hasty in pronouncing judgments on narrators and others in a manner unprecedented among the critical ḥadith masters! It calls to mind the proverb: “He tried to become a raisin before he had even ripened.”

Even if we were to grant, purely for argument’s sake, that ʿUbayd were unknown, that still would not preclude citing his report as corroborative evidence, as will be shown in Ibn Taymiyyah’s discussion (pp. 97–98). ⦗88⦘