mention any criticism or commendation of him. Makḥūl did not hear from ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr.
It has also been narrated from him through a third route: ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Muʾammal narrated it from ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb, from his father, from his grandfather, attributed to the Prophet. Al-Khaṭīb transmitted it in al-Taqyīd (p. 69). As mentioned above, ʿAbd Allāh is weak.
Ismāʿīl ibn Yaḥyā also narrated it from Ibn Abī Dhiʾb, from ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb, to the same effect. Al-Rāmahurmuzī transmitted it in al-Muḥaddith al-Fāṣil (fol. 93/1), as did al-Khaṭīb, who said: “ʿAlī ibn ʿUmar”—meaning Imam al-Dāraquṭnī—“said: ‘Ismāʿīl ibn Yaḥyā alone narrated it from Ibn Abī Dhiʾb.’”
I say: Ibn Abī Dhiʾb is trustworthy, so this would be a strong corroborating report; however, Ismāʿīl ibn Yaḥyā—Abū Yaḥyā al-Taymī—is a liar and a fabricator, so no weight should be given to it.
- As for the hadith of Ibn ʿAbbās, it is narrated by Ḥafṣ ibn ʿUmar ibn Abī al-ʿAṭṭāf, from Abū al-Zinād, from al-Aʿraj, from him, attributed to the Prophet. Ibn ʿAdī transmitted it in al-Kāmil (fol. 101/1) and said: “Ḥafṣ ibn ʿUmar’s hadith is rejected.” Al-Ḥāfiẓ said in al-Taqrīb: “Weak.”
In sum, all of these routes are defective, both those attributed to the Prophet and those attributed to the Companion. The best of them is the second route, which Ibn Abī Uways narrates … from Anas, and the corroborating report narrated by ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Muʾammal