Al-Bukhārī recorded it in al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr (1/1/341). In his entry on Ibrāhīm ibn Muḥammad ibn Thābit ibn Shuraḥbīl—a Medinan from Banū ʿAbd al-Dār ibn Quṣayy—he said: “Abū Muṣʿab told me: Ibrāhīm narrated to us, from ʿUthmān ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Abī ʿAtīq, from Saʿīd ibn ʿAmr ibn Juʿdah, from his father, from his grandmother Umm Hānī’, attributing it to the Prophet.”

Ibn ʿAdī also recorded it through this route in al-Kāmil (folio 5/1), as did al-Ṭabarānī and al-Bayhaqī in Manāqib al-Shāfiʿī (1/34). After citing it through al-Ṭabarānī with similar wording, al-Ḥāfiẓ al-ʿIrāqī said in Maḥajjat al-Qurb fī Maḥabbat al-ʿArab (folio 25/1): “This is a good hadith, and all its narrators are known and trustworthy, except ʿAmr ibn Juʿdah ibn Hubayrah. I have found no accreditation or criticism concerning him. He was the nephew of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib and the brother of Yaḥyā ibn Juʿdah ibn Hubayrah, one of the trustworthy narrators.”

I say: There are several points to consider in this statement:

First: Besides ʿAmr ibn Juʿdah’s unknown status, to which al-ʿIrāqī alluded, his son Saʿīd’s standing is much the same as his father’s, for none declared him trustworthy besides Ibn Ḥibbān, although a number of people narrated from him.

Second: Ibn Abī Ḥātim included ʿUthmān ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Abī ʿAtīq in al-Jarḥ wa-l-Taʿdīl (3/1/156), on the authority of this Ibrāhīm and Sulaymān ibn Bilāl, who narrated from him; yet he mentioned neither criticism nor accreditation concerning him. Perhaps he appears in Ibn Ḥibbān’s Thiqāt.

Third—and this is the most important point—the hadith’s hidden defect is the aforementioned Ibrāhīm, concerning whom there is disagreement. Ibn Ḥibbān declared him trustworthy, while Ibn Abī Ḥātim (1/1/125) reported from his father: “He is truthful.” Ibn ʿAdī said: “ʿAmr ibn Abī Salamah and others narrated objectionable reports from him.” Al-Dhahabī said likewise, and he found this hadith objectionable, as will follow.