Ibn ʿAdī (304/1) and al-Lālikāʾī also narrated it by another route from Abū Hilāl, with the same report.

Ibn ʿAdī said: “In some of his narrations, Abū Hilāl relates material with which the reliable narrators do not concur; nevertheless, he is among those whose hadith may be recorded.” Ibn ʿAdī (18/2) also narrated it from Ayyūb ibn Khawṭ, from Qatādah, with the same report; and through Yaḥyā ibn Bisṭām al-ʿAbdī: the nephew of Hishām al-Dastuwāʾī narrated to us from Hishām, from Qatādah, with the same report.

Abū Hilāl was named Muḥammad ibn Sulaym al-Rāsibī. He was truthful, though somewhat weak. Ayyūb ibn Khawṭ was abandoned; and Yaḥyā ibn Bisṭām was likewise, for Abū Dāwūd said of him: “They abandoned his hadith.” Ibn ʿAsākir also transmitted it in al-Tārīkh (18/43/2 and 44/1) through several routes from Qatādah, with the same report. He then narrated it (18/44/2) through ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn ʿAbd Allāh, from Shuʿbah, from Abū Isḥāq, from Nājiyah, from Ibn Masʿūd, attributed to the Prophet, with the same report.

ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn ʿAbd Allāh was Ibn Wahb al-Qurashī al-Baṣrī. Ibn ʿAdī criticized him, while Ibn Ḥibbān included him in al-Thiqāt and said: “His hadith should be considered when he explicitly states having heard it.”

In sum, all these routes from Qatādah are extremely weak, apart from the route of Abū Hilāl al-Rāsibī. It is far superior to them, and in my assessment it is good. Al-Manāwī reported that al-Haythamī said: “Its chain of transmission is good.” And Allah knows best. It is corroborated by a hadith from ʿĀʾishah, may Allah be pleased with her, attributed to the Prophet, with the wording: