It is astonishing that al-Bayhaqi overlooked this distinction and flatly declared that he was not a reliable authority. A similar statement was made by al-Mundhiri in his Abridgement of Abu Dawud. More astonishing still is that al-Zayla‘i, in Nasb al-Rayah (4/195), endorsed both of them, while Ibn al-Turkumani, in al-Jawhar al-Naqi, remained silent about al-Bayhaqi’s oversight—even though this hadith is the Hanafis’ evidence for prohibiting the eating of spiny-tailed lizard. They ought therefore to have pointed out this departure from what is correct, in defence of the truth rather than out of partisanship for their school.

This was the position taken by al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, although the hadith’s apparent meaning conflicts with his own school. He said in al-Fath (9/547): “Abu Dawud transmitted it with a good chain of transmission … Ibn ‘Ayyash’s narration from Syrians is strong, and these are trustworthy Syrians. One should not be misled by al-Khattabi’s statement, ‘Its chain is not particularly sound’; nor by Ibn Hazm’s statement, ‘It contains weak and unknown narrators’; nor by al-Bayhaqi’s statement, ‘Isma‘il ibn ‘Ayyash alone narrated it, and he is not a reliable authority’; nor by Ibn al-Jawzi’s statement, ‘It is not authentic.’ There is evident laxity in all these statements. For al-Bukhari considered Isma‘il’s narrations from Syrians strong, and al-Tirmidhi authenticated some of them …

“The preceding hadiths, though indicating permissibility both explicitly and implicitly, by direct wording and tacit approval, may be reconciled with this one by understanding its prohibition as belonging to the initial stage, when it was considered possible that the spiny-tailed lizard was among creatures transformed into other forms. At that point, he commanded that the cooking pots be overturned. Then he withheld judgment, neither commanding it nor forbidding it. The permission to eat it is understood as belonging to the later stage, after he learned that transformed creatures have no offspring. Thereafter, he found it distasteful, so he neither ate it nor declared it forbidden. It was eaten at his table, which demonstrates its permissibility. Thus, the disapproval is non-prohibitive in the case of one who finds it distasteful, while the hadiths permitting it apply to one who does not find it distasteful. This does not entail that it is disliked without qualification.”

I say: In sum, the hadith is established. Its being opposed by what is more authentic than it does not entail that it is weak. It is therefore among the accepted reports, and it must be reconciled with what is more authentic than it, in the manner you have seen in al-Hafiz’s discussion. Its conclusion is that it indicates disapproval, not prohibition, and applies to one who finds it distasteful. Al-Tabarani interpreted it likewise. And Allah knows best.