come across anyone who unequivocally declared it acceptable. Al-Suyūtī, however, did assign it that symbol in al-Jāmi! Yet it is weak because the unnamed narrator is unknown, and the fact that the remainder of its chain is acceptable does not lend it strength, as is evident to anyone versed in this discipline.

Moreover, al-Haythamī’s preceding statement, “One of al-Bazzār’s chains...,” indicates that al-Bazzār narrated the hadith through more than one chain, and such is indeed the case. It was noted earlier, in the passage I quoted from Ibn al-Qattān, that al-Bazzār narrated it by another route besides that of Imrān al-Qattān cited by al-Haythamī. I subsequently found its chain in Zawāʾid al-Bazzār, where he said (p. 157): “Ibrāhīm ibn al-Mustamirr narrated to us: Shuayb ibn Bayān narrated to us: Imrān al-Qattān narrated to us, from Qatāda, from Abū Tamīmiyya, from Abū Mūsā, traced back to the Prophet. And through the same chain as far as Shuayb: from al-Dahhāk ibn Yasār, from Abū Tamīmiyya, with the same report. Amr ibn Alī narrated to us: Abū Muāwiya narrated to us...” I say: He then cited its chain as previously quoted from Ibn al-Qattān. Its transmitters are trustworthy narrators whose reports appear in both Sahīhs, with the exception of Muhammad ibn Shayba ibn Nuāma, whose reports appear in Muslim alone. He is not well known, for no one besides Ibn Hibbān declared him trustworthy, and Ibn al-Qattān said, “His status is unknown.” Nevertheless, a number of trustworthy narrators reported from him, and al-Hāfiz said: “Acceptable”—meaning when corroborated.

As for the route through Abū Tamīmiyya, it hinges upon Shuayb ibn Bayān, namely al-Saffār. Al-Jūzjānī said: “He has objectionable narrations.” Al-Uqaylī said in al-Duafāʾ (p. 180): “He relates objectionable reports from trustworthy narrators, and errors nearly predominate in his narrations.”

That is the full extent of what was said about him. Thus, al-Dhahabī’s description of him as “truthful” clearly involves undue leniency. The statements I have quoted from the earlier hadith critics concur that his memory was poor. Describing him without qualification as truthful conveys the opposite impression, and this is impermissible. Al-Hāfiz Ibn Hajar was therefore more precise when he said of him:

“Truthful, but prone to error.”

I say: His inconsistency in narrating this hadith further confirms his poor accuracy. On one occasion he narrated it from Imrān al-Qattān, from Qatāda, from Abū Tamīmiyya, and on another from al-Dahhāk ibn Yasār, from Abū Tamīmiyya.