“There is no harm in his hadith.” Al-Dhahabi included him in al-Du‘afa’, together with al-Bukhari’s remark concerning him.

Al-Hafiz said: “He is truthful but makes mistakes.”

I say: Such a narrator is one whose hadith may be judged either good or weak. However, al-‘Uqayli said: “This hadith was mentioned to Imam Ahmad, and he rejected it, saying: ‘It is only attributed to the Companion.’” He cited this in the entry on ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn Muhammad—al-Darawardi. Perhaps it is more appropriate to identify its defect in the narrator who reports from him, namely al-Jari.

Yes, he was not alone in narrating it. Ibn Sa‘d said in al-Tabaqat (1/456, Beirut edition): “Muhammad ibn Sulaym al-‘Abdi informed us: al-Darawardi narrated it to me.” I say: Yet Muhammad ibn Sulaym is not one whose corroboration can be welcomed, because of his severe weakness. Ibn Ma‘in said: “He is not trustworthy; he lies in hadith.” Ibn Abi Hatim likewise declared him weak, reporting this from his father (3/2/275).

The hadith has a corroborating report narrated by Abu Shaybah al-Wasiti, from Tarif ibn Shihab, from al-Hasan, who then related it as attributed to the Prophet. Ibn Sa‘d recorded it. Yet it is mursal, and Abu Shaybah al-Wasiti—whose name is ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Ishaq—is weak, as al-Hafiz categorically stated in al-Taqrib.