That is what he said! Yet you have already seen that the narrators in Abū Yaʿlā’s chain are the same as those in al-Bazzār’s, with no difference except in his other narration: there, ʿAbd al-Wāḥid named his shaykh as Farqad al-Sabakhī instead of Aslam al-Kūfī, who appears in the first narration. Both narrations hinge on ʿAbd al-Wāḥid, whose weakness is undisputed—except, perhaps, by Ibn Ḥibbān. For although Ibn Ḥibbān included him in al-Ḍuʿafāʾ and said of him: “He was so overcome by devotion that he neglected precision; consequently, objectionable reports became frequent in his narrations, and he could no longer be cited as evidence,” he then cited this hadith under his entry.

I say: Despite all this, he also included him in al-Thiqāt! Al-Ḥāfiẓ said: “That was not well done.” I say: I do not think that he is the one meant by al-Haythamī’s statement: “There is disagreement concerning some of them.” It is possible that he meant Farqad, concerning whom there is disagreement. The majority, including Ibn Maʿīn and others like him, declared him weak, although Ibn Maʿīn deemed him trustworthy in one narration. Even if we grant that the stronger view is that he was trustworthy, what benefit is there in that when the one narrating from him is ʿAbd al-Wāḥid ibn Zayd?

(Note): The wording of the hadith in al-Ḥākim—and likewise in Ibn ʿAdī’s narration—is: “Any flesh nourished by ill-gotten wealth is more deserving of the Fire.”

I say: Similar to al-Haythamī’s statement cited above is that of al-Mundhirī (3/15): “It was narrated by Abū Yaʿlā, al-Bazzār, al-Ṭabarānī in al-Awsaṭ, and al-Bayhaqī; and some of their chains of transmission are good.” I say: Perhaps the grading mentioned refers to the chains of al-Awsaṭ and al-Bayhaqī, for I have not examined either of them in detail.