al-Hayāj ibn Basṭām → from his father → from al-Ḥasan ibn Dīnār → from al-Khuṣayb ibn Jaḥdar → from al-Naḍr—that is, Ibn Shufay—→ from Abū Asmāʾ → from Thawbān.
Both al-Ḥasan ibn Dīnār and al-Khuṣayb have been accused of fabrication, so in their place I cited the ḥadīth of Anas mentioned earlier.
I say: I have since located a good mursal corroboration for it, produced by Ibn al-Mubārak in Kitāb al-Zuhd (203/1): “Ismāʿīl ibn Ibrāhīm informed us; Yūnus narrated to us from al-Ḥasan,” as a marfūʿ report.
- “Let not a man’s awe of people prevent him from speaking the truth when he knows it (or has witnessed it, or heard it).”
It was reported by al-Tirmidhī (2/30), Ibn Mājah (4007), al-Ḥākim (4/506), al-Ṭayālisī (2156), Aḥmad (3/19, 50, 61), Abū Yaʿlā (folio 72/1), and al-Quḍāʿī in Musnad al-Shihāb (folio 79/2) through the chain of ʿAlī ibn Zayd ibn Judʿān al-Qurashī → from Abū Naḍrah → from Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī, as a marfūʿ report.
Al-Tirmidhī said: “This ḥadīth is ḥasan ṣaḥīḥ.”
Al-Ḥākim said: “ʿAlī ibn Zayd was not relied upon by the Two Shaykhs.”
Al-Dhahabī remarked: “I say: he is acceptable in ḥadīth.”
I say: The correct view is that the scholars differed about him, and the stronger opinion is that he is weak; al-Ḥāfiẓ states this categorically in al-Taqrīb. His weakness, however, is due to poor memory, not to any suspicion about his integrity. Therefore, when he is corroborated, his ḥadīth may be judged ḥasan—or even ṣaḥīḥ. In this case, he is not the sole narrator from Abū Naḍrah; rather, a group of narrators have corroborated him in it: