But Ibn ʿAdī concluded his biographical entry on him by saying: “His hadiths are acceptable and may be entertained; perhaps the defect came from someone who narrated from him.”

I say: How can this possibility be valid when, as Ibn ʿAdī himself stated above, ʿAmr ibn Abī Salamah was among those who narrated objectionable reports from him, and ʿAmr was a trustworthy memorizer? Moreover, Abū Muṣʿab narrated this very hadith from him, as you have seen. He was Aḥmad ibn Abī Bakr al-Zuhrī, the Medinan jurist, and he too was trustworthy and among the narrators relied upon by the two Shaykhs.

In short, this Ibrāhīm is not free of some weakness, since trustworthy narrators transmitted objectionable reports from him. Further supporting this is the fact that he was contradicted regarding its chain of transmission. Imam al-Bukhārī said immediately after it: “Al-Uwaysī told me: Sulaymān narrated to me, from ʿUthmān ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Abī ʿAtīq, from Ibn Juʿdah al-Makhzūmī, from Ibn Shihāb, from the Prophet, with similar wording.”

I say: He thus narrated it with a break, either as a mursal report or as a muʿḍal report, and al-Bukhārī preferred this version, saying immediately afterwards: “It more closely resembles a mursal report.” Sulaymān, who narrated it as mursal, was Ibn Bilāl al-Madanī, also a trustworthy narrator relied upon by the two Shaykhs. Thus, Ibrāhīm’s contradiction of him by relating the hadith with a connected chain is rejected, as is evident to anyone possessing even the slightest knowledge of the principles of this noble science.

Moreover, a number of people besides Abū Muṣʿab narrated it from him, among them Yaʿqūb ibn Muḥammad al-Zuhrī, who said: “Ibrāhīm ibn Muḥammad ibn Thābit narrated it to us with this chain.” Al-Ḥākim recorded it (2/536) and said: “Its chain of transmission is authentic!” Al-Dhahabī criticized this, saying: “I say: Yaʿqūb is weak, and Ibrāhīm is a transmitter of objectionable reports; this is the most objectionable of them.”