Al-Bayhaqī also cited the report in his work Al-Asmāʾ wa-l-Ṣifāt (p. 290).
I comment: Its chain of transmission is extremely weak. Ibrāhīm – this very narrator – is classified as abandoned, as al-Dhahabī stated, and Abū Ḥātim actually declared him a liar.
He (Ibrāhīm) was followed by al-Qāsim ibn Muḥammad al-Thaqafī, but he is an unknown narrator, as noted in Al-Taqrīb.
Ibn Mardawayh likewise related the ḥadīth, as Ibn Kathīr reports in his Tafsīr (2/13, Manār edition), through the route of Muḥammad ibn Abī al-Sarī al-ʿAsqalānī: “Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Tamīmī informed us, from al-Qāsim …” Both al-ʿAsqalānī and al-Tamīmī are weak narrators.
The ḥadīth has two additional isnāds from Abū Dharr:
-
The first is via Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd al-Saʿdī al-Baṣrī, who said: “ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Jurayj narrated to us, from ʿAṭāʾ, from ʿUbayd ibn ʿUmar al-Laythī, from him (i.e., Abū Dharr) …”
Al-Bayhaqī recorded this route and remarked, “Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd al-Saʿdī is alone in transmitting it; however, it does have a corroborating narration with a sounder chain.”
I add: Al-Bayhaqī then quoted it through the previously mentioned Ghassānī chain, yet in my estimation that isnād is no sounder—indeed, it is weaker—for Ibrāhīm is actually accused of fabrication, as noted earlier. By contrast, the present isnād contains no narrator who has been explicitly accused; its transmitters are trustworthy—apart from this same al-Saʿdī. Al-ʿUqaylī said, “No one follows him in this ḥadīth,” referring to this narration. Ibn Ḥibbān added, “He relates inverted and patched-together reports; when he is the sole transmitter, his narrations are inadmissible as proof.”
-
The second route is through Ibn Zayd, who said: “My father told me that Abū Dharr stated …,” and he mentioned the report.