that it was as though the Zuhayr from whom the Syrians narrated was someone else. Abū Ḥātim said: “He narrated in Syria from memory, and consequently made many errors.”

I say: This is transmitted by al-Tanīsī from him, and al-Tanīsī was Syrian; therefore, in my view, the chain of transmission is weak.

Al-Haythamī said in al-Majmaʿ (4/272): “Al-Ṭabarānī narrated it in al-Awsaṭ. In its chain is ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, from Anas, from whom Zuhayr ibn Muḥammad narrated. I did not identify him, unless he is ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd ibn Aslam, in which case the chain would be disconnected; and if he is someone else, I did not identify him. Allah knows best.”

I say: Al-Ḥākim’s narration establishes that he was ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd; he then stated that he was Ibn ʿUqbah. Ibn Abī Ḥātim included his biography (2/2/233) and said: “He is counted among the people of Medina. He narrated from Anas ibn Mālik, and ʿAmr ibn Yaḥyā narrated from him. I asked my father about him, and he replied: ‘There is nothing wrong with his hadiths.’” Ibn Ḥibbān also included him in al-Thiqāt (1/125).

Note: I mentioned above that al-Dhahabī endorsed al-Ḥākim’s declaration that it was authentic, and this is what appears in the printed edition of al-Talkhīṣ. I then saw al-Manāwī say in al-Fayḍ: “Al-Ḥākim said: ‘Authentic.’ Al-Dhahabī objected to this, saying that Zuhayr was deemed trustworthy, but had objectionable reports.” End quote. “Ibn Ḥajar said: ‘Its chain is weak.’”

Al-Mundhirī, in al-Targhīb (3/68), cited al-Ḥākim’s authentication of it and likewise endorsed it. Al-Ḥāfiẓ al-ʿIrāqī did the same in Takhrīj al-Iḥyāʾ (4/99), but noted that Ibn al-Jawzī narrated it in al-ʿIlal as a hadith from Anas with a weak chain; it is found in al-Ṭabarānī’s al-Awsaṭ. Al-Haythamī said in al-Majmaʿ (4/252):