I say: This chain contains weakness: Muʿāwiyah ibn Yaḥyā al-Ṣadafī. Al-Ḥāfiẓ said: “What he narrated in Syria is better than what he narrated in Rayy.”

He was corroborated by ʿAbbād ibn Kathīr, from ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, from al-Zuhrī, with the same report. It was recorded by al-Bāghandī in Musnad ʿUmar (p. 13) and al-Khaṭīb in al-Mūḍiḥ (2/146). ʿAbbād ibn Kathīr al-Filasṭīnī is weak, though he is better than the Baṣran one, who is abandoned.

He was also corroborated by ʿĪsā ibn Yūnus, from Mālik, from al-Zuhrī, with the same report. Al-Khaṭīb recorded it (8/4), and Ibn ʿAsākir narrated it from him (4/327/1), through the route of al-Ḥusayn ibn Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Wahb al-Asadī, who said: Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Sahm narrated to us; ʿĪsā ibn Yūnus narrated to us.

I say: Its narrators are trustworthy, apart from this al-Ḥusayn ibn Aḥmad. Al-Khaṭīb gave his biography and mentioned that he narrated from a great number of people, whom he named, and that ʿAbd al-Ṣamad al-Ṭustī and Abū Bakr al-Shāfiʿī narrated from him. Yet he mentioned neither any criticism nor commendation of him. However, it appears that there is an omission in a copy of Tārīkh al-Khaṭīb, for Ibn ʿAsākir related al-Khaṭīb’s remarks concerning him and added ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad ibn Muʿallā al-Shūnīzī among those who narrated from him. He said: “I have known nothing but good of him.”

Ibn Sahm was from Antioch. Al-Khaṭīb likewise gave his biography (2/310) and said: “He was trustworthy.” Ibn Abī Ḥātim (2/2/5) mentioned, on his father’s authority, that Muslim narrated from him. Apparently, this means that he narrated from him outside the Ṣaḥīḥ.

In sum, this chain is good. Nor is it impaired by the fact that Mālik recorded it in al-Muwaṭṭaʾ