I say: This is a good chain of transmission. Its narrators are trustworthy, apart from this Khunays, of whom Ṣāliḥ Jazarah said: “Weak.” Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in al-Thiqāt, and al-Būṣīrī made no comment on him in al-Zawāʾid (8/1). However, in the introduction he explicitly stated that whatever he makes no comment on requires examination.
-
As for the hadith of Jābir, al-Ṭabarānī recorded it in al-Awsaṭ from his shaykh al-Miqdām ibn Dāwūd. Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd said that he was declared trustworthy, though al-Nasāʾī and others deemed him weak. The rest of its narrators are narrators of the Ṣaḥīḥ, as al-Haythamī said (9/53). Ibn ʿAsākir (13/24/1) also recorded it through this route.
-
As for the hadith of Abū Saʿīd, al-Bazzār and al-Ṭabarānī recorded it in al-Awsaṭ. Its chain includes ʿAlī ibn ʿĀbis, who is weak.
-
As for the hadith of Ibn ʿUmar, it is narrated by Dāwūd ibn Mihrān al-Dabbāgh, Abū Sulaymān: “ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Mālik ibn Mighwal narrated to us from ʿUbayd Allāh, from Nāfiʿ, from him.” Al-Sahmī recorded it in Tārīkh Jurjān (77), as did Ibn ʿAsākir (13/23/2). Ibn Abī Ḥātim (2/389) reported from his father: “This is a false hadith”—meaning, through this chain of transmission. He refused to narrate it to us and said: “Strike it out.”
I say: Its narrators are trustworthy apart from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Mālik ibn Mighwal, who is a liar, as Abū Dāwūd said. Al-Dāraquṭnī said: “Abandoned.” He is the flaw in this chain of transmission; I have mentioned it only to clarify his condition. In sum, the hadith is undoubtedly authentic when all its routes are considered together, for some of its routes are good in themselves, some serve as corroborative evidence, and the rest are among those whose weakness is severe; so, in light of what