Abū Tawbah al-Rabīʿ ibn Nāfiʿ narrated to us: Saʿīd ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Jumaḥī narrated to us, from Suhayl, from his father, from Abū Hurayrah, as a report attributed to the Prophet. This is a good chain of transmission. Its narrators are trustworthy and are among Muslim’s narrators. There is some criticism of Saʿīd ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, but it is not detrimental, Allah willing.

Al-Ḥāfiẓ wrote in al-Fatḥ (10/122): “The majority deemed him trustworthy, while some considered him weak on account of his memory.” He said in al-Taqrīb: “Truthful, though he made errors; Ibn Ḥibbān went to excess in declaring him weak.”

Abū Muḥammad al-Mukhalidī al-ʿAdl also transmitted the hadith in abridged form in al-Fawāʾid (3/224/1), as did al-Ḥākim (4/210), through this route. Al-Ḥākim said: “Authentic according to Muslim’s criterion,” and al-Dhahabī agreed with him. Al-Manāwī objected, saying: “However, Ibn al-Qaṭṭān declared it weak, because it is narrated by Saʿīd al-Jumaḥī from Sahl, from his father, and Sahl and his father are unknown.” But my grandfather mentioned in his Tadhkirah that his teacher, al-Ḥāfiẓ al-ʿIrāqī, gave the formal ruling that its chain of transmission is authentic according to Muslim’s criterion.

I say: This is correct: it meets Muslim’s criterion, for all of its narrators are among the narrators of his Ṣaḥīḥ. The only reason we did not deem it authentic ourselves was Saʿīd ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān’s weak retention. As for Ibn al-Qaṭṭān’s declaring it weak, this was based on his assumption that Saʿīd’s teacher here was Sahl. But that is not so; rather, he is Suhayl—using the diminutive form—ibn Abī Ṣāliḥ, as he is named by lineage in al-Mustadrak. He and his father are both well-known trustworthy narrators, and are also among Muslim’s narrators.

The hadith also has corroborating reports from the Prophet’s actions—peace and blessings be upon him—and from his statements. See: “The best day on which you undergo cupping” and “He used to undergo cupping.”