“It was narrated by al-Bazzar and al-Tabarani in al-Kabir. Its chain includes Maymun ibn Zayd, concerning whom al-Dhahabi said: ‘Abu Hatim deemed him weak.’ Al-Tabarani’s chain includes al-ʿAbbas ibn ʿUtbah, concerning whom al-Dhahabi said: ‘He narrates from ʿAtaʾ’—and he cited this hadith in his entry, then said—‘His hadith is not authentic.’ I say: Sulayman al-Ahwal also narrated it from ʿAtaʾ, and he is one of the narrators of the Sahih. Al-Bazzar likewise reports it through him, and I hope that its chain of transmission is good. Al-Tabarani’s wording is: ‘Purify these bodies …’”
I say: He then cited its wording as given shortly before. This indicates that it too is a report of Ibn ʿUmar, which conflicts with his explicit statement in the place referred to above that it is a report of Ibn ʿAbbas. Allah knows best the reason for this inconsistency.
Moreover, his preceding remarks contain another point that requires notice: they suggest that al-Tabarani did not narrate it through Maymun ibn Zayd or through Sulayman al-Ahwal, whereas the matter is otherwise, as will become clear to you upon consulting my documentation of this narration of Maymun. They likewise suggest that al-Bazzar’s narration is not through Maymun, which is also contrary to fact. This latter point has been noted in the margin of al-Majmaʿ, and I believe the note to be in the hand of al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him.
In sum, the chain of transmission is good were it not for Ibn Dhakwan’s anʿanah (use of the ambiguous “from” formula); it is therefore good by virtue of the narration of al-ʿAbbas ibn ʿUtbah. And Allah knows best.
As for the commentator’s statement in Mawarid al-Zamʾan (1/287, Damascus), “The hadith of Muʿadh reported by Ahmad (5/235) corroborates it …,” this is an error. It contains nothing corresponding to it except the merit of one who spends the night in a state of purity; it does not contain the words, “An angel spends the night in his inner garment …,” and so on. Thus, it is a very limited corroborating report. Such errors are frequently made by the person just mentioned and others like him among those engaged in this noble discipline who possess neither understanding nor knowledge of the meanings and texts. He made another error in his documentation of Muʿadh’s hadith: he graded it good on the authority of Shahr ibn Hawshab in the collection of Abu—