Mushir al-Dimashqī, Abū Nu'aym al-Hāfiz, and others.

I say: Even if it were established that Makhūl had heard from Abū Tha'laba in general, that would not establish that he heard this particular hadith from him, because Makhūl practiced tadlīs and narrated it from him using the non-explicit formula “from.”

The second defect is that there is disagreement over whether the report is traced back to the Prophet or stopped at Abū Tha'laba. Some narrated it from Makhūl, from Abū Tha'laba, as Abū Tha'laba’s own statement. Al-Dāraqutnī, however, said: “The version traced back to the Prophet is more likely to be correct.” He added: “It is also the better-known version.” Ibn Rajab said:

“The Shaykh (al-Nawawī)—may Allah have mercy on him—graded this hadith acceptable. Before him, al-Hāfiz Abū Bakr al-Sam'ānī (1) had likewise graded it acceptable in his Amālī.”

I say: Abū al-Futūh al-Tā'ī (2) followed him, saying after it:

“This is a great, good hadith; Dāwūd alone transmitted it from Makhūl.”

I say: If by this they meant that it is “good” in the ordinary linguistic sense, then it is. But if they meant that it is acceptable in the technical terminology of hadith—as appears to be the case—then it is not, because the first defect is a damaging one. The other defect, however, is not damaging, because several reliable narrators transmitted it from Dāwūd ibn Abī Hind as traced back to the Prophet. Among them was Hafs ibn Ghiyāth, although al-Bayhaqī transmitted it through him as stopped at Abū Tha'laba. Nevertheless, the version traced back to the Prophet takes precedence because it accords with the other narrators who also traced it back to him. That seems to be why al-Dāraqutnī preferred it, as previously mentioned. Allah knows best.

It has two corroborating reports, but both are extremely feeble and therefore unfit to furnish corroboration.

The first is the hadith of Asram ibn Hawshab, through his chain from Abū al-Dardā, tracing a similar report back to the Prophet.