Abū Dāwūd also said: “He had only one hadith,” then mentioned this one. Al-Ḥākim Abū Aḥmad said: “They did not consider him strong.” Al-Ḥāfiẓ said in al-Taqrīb: “Weak.”

He was also corroborated by ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Muḥammad ibn Abī Bakr ibn Ḥamd ibn ʿAmr ibn Ḥazm, from his father, from ʿAmrah, with the same report, except for the words, “except the prescribed legal punishments.” It was recorded by al-Ṭaḥāwī (3/128) and al-ʿUqaylī in al-Weak Narrators (p. 236). The latter said: “It has also been narrated through another chain of transmission, but that too contains some weakness, and nothing established is found in it.” He mentioned it in the biography of this ʿAbd al-Raḥmān and narrated from al-Bukhārī that he said: “Al-Wāqidī narrated strange reports from him.”

I say: Al-Wāqidī is accused, so his shaykh should not be impugned on account of the strange reports he narrated from him. The presumption is freedom from liability, and it may not be set aside except on the basis of proof. It was perhaps for this reason that al-Ḥāfiẓ said of him: “Acceptable”—that is, when corroborated. Since he has been corroborated, his hadith is acceptable. He was also corroborated, albeit with a slight variation that is not harmful, Allah Most High willing. Al-Khallāl said in al-Enjoining What Is Right (folio 5/2): “Aḥmad ibn al-Faraj, Abū ʿUtbah al-Ḥimṣī, informed us: Ibn Abī Fudayk related to us; Ibn Abī Dhiʾb related to us, from Muḥammad ibn Abī Bakr, from his father, from his grandfather, from ʿUmar, tracing it back to the Prophet, with the same report.”