(folio 64/2), through al-Ṭabarānī. Abū Nuʿaym said: “Zamʿah alone narrated it.”

I say: He is weak. The other route is from Muḥammad ibn ʿAmr al-Wāqifī, from Abū al-Zubayr, from him, with the same wording. It was recorded by al-Muḥāmilī in the third part of al-Amālī (folio 33/1). This al-Wāqifī is weak, as stated in al-Taqrīb. Abū al-Zubayr practised tadlīs and reported it with an ambiguous transmission formula. Yet al-Haythamī said (3/151): “Al-Bazzār narrated it, and all of its narrators appear in the Sahih collections.” Perhaps al-Bazzār narrated it through a route other than these two. I later discovered, from Zawāʾid al-Bazzār (p. 106), that it is through the first route.

It has a second corroborating report in the hadith of ʿUqbah ibn ʿĀmir. It was recorded by Abū al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAbd Kūyah in Three Sessions (folio 10/2), through al-Ṭabarānī, and by Ibn ʿAdī (58/1), from Ibn Lahīʿah, from Yazīd ibn Abī Ḥabīb, from Abū al-Khayr, from him. Ibn Lahīʿah is weak because of his poor retention; thus, he is among those whose reports may be used as supporting evidence.

A third corroborating report is mursal. Al-Khaṭīb recorded it in al-Talkhīṣ (folio 108/2), through Ismāʿīl ibn ʿAyyāsh, from Ibrāhīm ibn Shuʿayth, from Saʿīd ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Abī Hind.

Ibn Abī Ḥātim included this Ibrāhīm in his biographical notices (1/1/105), but mentioned no criticism or accreditation concerning him.