Ayyub transmitted it from Ibn Jurayj, from Nafiʿ, from Ibn ʿUmar, as a report traced back to the Prophet.

Al-Hakim said, “It is sound according to the criteria of al-Bukhari,” and al-Dhahabi agreed with him!

Al-Mundhiri (1/111) commented: “That is indeed the case, for ʿAbd Allah ibn Salih, the secretary of al-Layth—although criticism has been voiced about him—was nevertheless cited by al-Bukhari in his Sahih.” This remark of al-Mundhiri is more judicious than al-Dhahabi’s unqualified concurrence in authenticating the hadith, all the more so because al-Mundhiri himself, in the biographical entry on this same ʿAbd Allah ibn Salih, listed the present report among those that were faulted.

Ibn ʿAdi, after quoting the hadith, said: “I do not know anyone who narrated this chain from Ibn Wahb (he wrote so, though it is probably Ibn Ayyub) apart from Abu Salih. In my view he is upright in hadith, yet slip-ups occur in both his chains and his texts; he does not deliberately lie.”

Al-Baghawi wrote: “ʿAbd Allah ibn Salih, the secretary of al-Layth, is trustworthy, but there are objectionable reports in his narrations.”

Accordingly, al-Busayri stated in al-Zawaʾid (48/2): “Its chain is weak because of the weakness of ʿAbd Allah ibn Salih.”

The hadith has yet another flaw: the ʿanʿanah of Ibn Jurayj.

Al-Bayhaqi added after citing it: “Yahya ibn al-Mutawakkil transmitted it from Ibn Jurayj, from someone who related it to him, from Nafiʿ. Al-Bukhari said: ‘This version is closer to the truth.’”

I say: It thus becomes clear that this isnad cannot be used as evidence,