Sulayman Abu al-Rabiʿ—identified in al-Mizan and al-Lisan as Ibn al-Rabiʿ—narrated it from the client of Anas. This is a reversal; the correct name is al-Rabiʿ ibn Sulayman or Sulaym. The variation in the ضبط of his name is clear evidence that the man was neither well-known nor identified.

Ibn Abi Hatim gave a biographical notice in al-Jarh wa al-Taʿdil (1/2/443) for Rabiʿ ibn Sulaym al-Azdi, Abu Sulayman al-Khalqani al-Basri, in which he mentioned the preceding statements of Ibn Maʿin and Abu Hatim. However, al-Hafiz, in al-Lisan, distinguished between Rabiʿ ibn Sulaym al-Kufi, the narrator of this hadith, and Rabiʿ ibn Sulaym al-Khalqani al-Basri. Strangely, he repeated there the statements of Ibn Maʿin and Abu Hatim referred to above, without the slightest indication of this distinction.

What appears to me is that the Kufan is not the Basran; the former is the narrator of this hadith and is unknown, whereas the latter is the one whom Ibn Maʿin declared weak, and he has no connection to this hadith. And Allah knows best. Ibn Abi Hatim then said: “My father said: This is a rejected hadith.” Perhaps this was al-Azdi’s basis for his statement concerning its narrator: “His hadith is rejected,” as mentioned above.

The hadith has another route. Ibn Bishran related in al-Amali (108/1), and al-Diyaʾ related it from him in al-Mukhtarah (109/2): Abu ʿAli Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Sawwaf informed us; Bishr ibn Musa related to us; Abu Hafs—that is, ʿAmr ibn ʿAli al-Fallas—related to us; al-Fadl ibn al-ʿAla al-Kufi related to us