The same applies to al-Qāsim ibn Muḥammad; he is not the trustworthy Medinan narrator. Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar said: “I think he was Syrian.”

The third route: Abū Nuʿaym said: “Muʿāwiyah ibn Ṣāliḥ also narrated it in its full length, from Abū ʿAbd al-Malik Muḥammad ibn Ayyūb, from Ibn ʿĀʾidh, from Abū Dharr.” I say: Ibn Abī Ḥātim mentioned this Ibn Ayyūb (3/2/196–197) in connection with this narration, but did not cite any criticism or accreditation of him. As for Ibn ʿĀʾidh, I have not presently identified his name.

The fourth route is from Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd al-ʿAbshamī—of the Banū Saʿd ibn Tamīm—who said: Ibn Jurayj narrated to us from ʿAṭāʾ, from ʿUbayd ibn ʿUmayr, from Abū Dharr, with it. Abū Nuʿaym and al-Bayhaqī (9/4) transmitted it, though al-Ḥākim narrated it through his route (2/597), naming him Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd al-Saʿdī al-Baṣrī. He made no comment on him, whereas al-Dhahabī said: “I say: al-Saʿdī is not trustworthy.”

I say: The one who is not trustworthy is only Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd al-Madanī. This one, however, was from Baṣrah, and thus he is someone else. Al-Ḥāfiẓ inclines to this view in al-Lisān; consult it. I say: I have not identified this al-ʿAbshamī, and al-Samʿānī did not mention this attribution.

In sum, the number of messengers mentioned in the hadith under discussion is intrinsically authentic. As for the number of prophets, mentioned in one of its routes and in the hadith of Abū Dharr through three routes, it is authentic by virtue of supporting evidence. Perhaps this is why, when Ibn Kathīr cited it in his History (1/97), as narrated by Ibn Ḥibbān in his Ṣaḥīḥ, he made no comment on it or raised any objection, which indicates that he considered it established. Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar likewise did so in al-Fatḥ (6/257)