“Minhāl ibn Khalīfah: Yaḥyā said, ‘Weak,’ and al-Bukhārī said, ‘There is serious question about him.’ It is corroborated only through a route comparable to it, and it is narrated only as a mursal report.”

I say: He seems to be referring to the first route, which, as you can see, is better than this one. Salām was declared trustworthy by a number of scholars, and his hadith is good, unlike al-Minhāl, whom the majority deemed weak. Indeed, al-Bukhārī judged him to be very weak in his previously cited statement.

As for the mursal report to which he referred, I have not found it. However, I found a connected supporting narration from the hadith of Anas, transmitted by two routes. The first is from ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥasan al-Shāmī, from Khulayd ibn Daʿlaj, from Qatādah, from Anas, attributed to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. Ibn ʿAsākir recorded it in Praise of Humility (folio 89/1/2) and said: “This is a good, singular hadith, uniquely narrated by ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥasan from Khulayd ibn Daʿlaj. It has also been narrated from Anas by another route.”

I say: How could it be considered good when this ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥasan is accused? Ibn Ḥibbān said: “It is not permissible to write down his hadith except for the purpose of astonishment.” After citing several of his hadiths, Ibn ʿAdī said: “None of them is preserved; they are false reports, as is all of his hadith. He is very weak.” Al-Dāraquṭnī said: “He lies, narrating false reports from trustworthy narrators.” Al-Ḥākim said: “He narrated fabricated hadiths.”

I say: Such a person’s hadith cannot be used as corroboration, much less cited as proof or judged good.

Ibn ʿAsākir then cited the other route, through al-Zubayr ibn Bakkār: Abū— narrated to us: