I say: He did not give its wording. The first chain of transmission is good: all its narrators are well-known trustworthy transmitters listed in al-Tahdhib, apart from Ayyub ibn Hassan al-Jurashi, who is acceptable in hadith, as Ibn Abi Hatim (1/1/244) reported from his father; and apart from al-Ma'mari, who was truthful and a memorizer, with biographies in al-Mizan, al-Lisan, and other works. Asim ibn Bahdalah—who is Ibn Abi al-Najud—has been subject to well-known criticism, but it does not reduce his hadith below the rank of good.

Aban is Ibn Yazid al-Attar, a trustworthy narrator relied upon by the two Shaykhs. Al-Haythami made a grave mistake concerning him when he said (2/299): “Al-Tabarani narrated it in al-Kabir, and its chain includes Aban ibn Abi Ayyash. Ayyub and Sulaym al-Alawi declared him trustworthy, whereas Shubah, Ahmad, Ibn Ma'in, and Abu Hatim declared him weak.”

This is evident from two points. First, he failed to notice that the chain itself specifies that Aban was al-Attar; instead, he interpreted him on his own initiative as Aban ibn Abi Ayyash, whom al-Hafiz deemed abandoned. The hadith thus became weak as a result! I myself had been misled by this in some of my writings, so let it be corrected.

Second, he overlooked al-Rabi ibn Huzayyan’s corroboration of Aban, which al-Tabarani cited immediately after the hadith, as you have seen. This corroboration is unobjectionable, for Ibn Abi Hatim (1/2/459) included this al-Rabi on the basis of reports from two trustworthy narrators who transmitted from him. He also has a third narrator, namely Abd Rabbih, who narrated this hadith from him. Ibn Abi Hatim (3/1/44) gave his biography on the basis of reports from two trustworthy narrators who transmitted from him, and mentioned no criticism or accreditation concerning him. Abu Zurah said of al-Rabi: