al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr (3/102/1), but only the portion attributed to the Prophet. However, this Ibrāhīm—al-Khūzī—is abandoned, and Ibn ʿAdī did not recognize him, declaring him “unknown.” See al-Lisān (1/125).

It was also narrated from Ibrāhīm ibn Maysarah through another route from him, with a connected chain: ʿAbd al-Ṣamad ibn Ḥassān narrated to us: Sufyān al-Thawrī narrated to us, from Ibrāhīm ibn Maysarah, with the same report. Abū al-Qāsim al-Mahrawānī recorded it in al-Fawāʾid al-Muntakhabah (55/1) and said: “No one narrated it from al-Thawrī with a connected chain in this manner except ʿAbd al-Ṣamad ibn Ḥassān; Muʾammal ibn Ismāʿīl corroborated him. Others narrated it from Sufyān as a mursal report, omitting Ibn ʿAbbās from its chain of transmission; and that is correct.”

I say: I have not seen it narrated from al-Thawrī as a mursal report; rather, it was narrated thus from Ibn ʿUyaynah, as mentioned above. Therefore, this narration of ʿAbd al-Ṣamad is good, for he was truthful, as al-Dhahabī said. Nor did he narrate anything anomalous in contradiction to the reliable narrators, unlike al-Ṭāʾifī and others, as you have seen. Indeed, Muʾammal ibn Ismāʿīl corroborated him, as al-Mahrawānī mentioned; thus he is an acceptable supporting narrator for ʿAbd al-Ṣamad. When this connected route is combined with Ibn ʿUyaynah’s other connected route from ʿAmr ibn Dīnār, the hadith gains strength and rises to the rank of authentic, if Allah Most High wills.

Note: Al-Manāwī said in al-Fayḍ: “In its chain according to Ibn Mājah is Saʿīd ibn Sulaymān, concerning whom al-Kāshif states that Aḥmad said: ‘He used to make textual errors.’”

I say: This attempted objection is baseless, for reliable narrators other than him transmitted it in al-Ḥākim and elsewhere.