Thus, it is a good chain on account of corroborating evidence; it may also be good in itself, in which case it is authentic on account of corroborating evidence.
The other route is through Ziyād Abū ʿUmar, from al-Ḥasan, from him. Aḥmad narrated it (4/319). This is a good chain; its narrators are trustworthy, were it not that al-Ḥasan—al-Baṣrī—practised tadlīs and has narrated it using an ambiguous “from” formulation. There is also minor criticism concerning Ziyād—who is Ibn Abī Aslam.
Ismāʿīl ibn Naṣr contradicted him, saying: “ʿAbbād ibn Rāshid narrated to us, from al-Ḥasan, from ʿImrān ibn Ḥuṣayn, attributing it to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, with the same wording.” Thus, he made it a hadith of ʿImrān. Al-Bazzār narrated it and said: “We know of no chain better than this by which it is narrated from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and we know of no route by which it is narrated from ʿImrān except this one.” Al-Haythamī said (10/68): “Al-Bazzār narrated it, and its chain is good (!); and al-Ṭabarānī narrated it in al-Awsaṭ.”
- As for the hadith of Ibn ʿUmar, it is narrated by ʿĪsā ibn Maymūn, who said: Bakr ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Muzanī informed us from him, with the same wording. Abū Nuʿaym narrated it in al-Ḥilyah (2/231), from Abū ʿĀṣim; al-Sahmī in Tārīkh Jurjān (386), from Muḥammad ibn Abān; and al-Quḍāʿī in Musnad al-Shihāb (110/1), from Muʿallā ibn Asad—all three from ʿĪsā ibn Maymūn.
I say: This is an authentic chain, for the ʿĪsā ibn Maymūn from whom Abū ʿĀṣim narrated is al-Jurashī al-Makkī, the author of a work of exegesis, and he is trustworthy. Bakr ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Muzanī was an eminent, trustworthy Successor.