I say: Al-Haythamī did not mention, in Zawāʾid Musnad al-Bazzār, any other route for the hadith of Abū Hurayrah besides this one. Perhaps his word “routes” is a corruption of “route.” Yet al-Munāwī quoted it from al-Haythamī as I have quoted it from him—“the routes”—and then made a grave error by placing this statement of al-Haythamī immediately after the hadith of Buraydah mentioned above. He thereby gave the false impression of two things:

First, that Buraydah’s hadith has more than one route. This is not so.

Second, that it is weak. This too is not so; rather, its chain of transmission is authentic, as al-Haythamī himself indicated earlier.

Strangely, al-Haythamī did not cite it alongside the hadith of Abū Hurayrah in the place referred to, and it is unlikely that he cited it elsewhere in Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid. It was also recorded by Abū al-Shaykh in Akhlāq al-Nabī (p. 274), al-ʿUqaylī in al-Ḍuʿafāʾ (p. 278), Abū al-Qāsim ibn Abī Quʿnab in Ḥadīth al-Qāsim ibn al-Ashyab (8/1), and al-Baghawī in Sharḥ al-Sunnah (4/71/2), through the route of ʿAmr ibn Rāshid, from Yaḥyā ibn Abī Kathīr, with the same report.

Al-Baghawī said: “ʿAmr ibn Rāshid is weak.” Al-ʿUqaylī said: “No one corroborates him except one who is inferior to him or like him.” He seems to be referring to the previously mentioned corroborating narration of ʿUmar ibn Abī Khathʿam.

The hadith has another supporting report, from the hadith of Ibn ʿAbbās, narrated by al-Naḍr ibn Ismāʿīl al-Bajalī, from Ṭalḥah ibn ʿAmr, from ʿAṭāʾ, from Ibn ʿAbbās, attributed to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. Ibn ʿAdī recorded it in al-Kāmil (folio 205/1), and al-Daylamī in al-Musnad (1/1/104). Ibn ʿAdī said: “Most of what Ṭalḥah ibn ʿAmr narrates is not corroborated, and this hadith is among those that require scrutiny.” Ibn Abī Ḥātim mentioned it through this route in al-ʿIlal (2/329) and said: