in his commentary on al-Maṭālib al-ʿĀliyah (2/36/1588), and endorsed it!

Third: the annotator of Musnad Abī Yaʿlā said (3/19): “Its chain of transmission is very weak. Al-Ḥārith ibn ʿUmayr and his shaykh are unknown, and, as far as we know, there is no narrator from Abū Ṭalḥah named Shaddād; thus, in our view, it is interrupted.” He then cited al-Haythamī’s remarks and endorsed them as well!

Fourth: the annotator of al-Maqṣad al-ʿĀlī (2/328)—Qammāsh, a mere imitator—quoted al-Haythamī’s remarks and the gist of the annotator’s comments on Abī Yaʿlā!

I say: All of this is mistaken. Al-Ḥārith ibn ʿUmayr is Abū ʿUmayr al-Baṣrī, as stated earlier; al-Mizzī listed Zājir ibn al-Ṣalt among those who narrated from him. Shaddād, whose lineage is not stated in Abū Yaʿlā’s narration, is Ibn Saʿīd, identified in the hadith under discussion; his kunyah was Abū Ṭalḥah al-Rāsibī, as stated earlier, and he is listed among the shaykhs of al-Ḥārith ibn ʿUmayr.

The wording in Abū Yaʿlā, “from Abū Ṭalḥah,” is perhaps one of al-Ḥārith ibn ʿUmayr’s errors. The correct wording is “Shaddād Abū Ṭalḥah,” with the particle “from” omitted between the name and the kunyah. This correct form occurs in Ibn Abī ʿĀṣim’s narration (1535), through Zājir, of the same report. And Allah knows best.

Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned this Zājir in al-Thiqāt (4/269), and Abū Zurʿah said: “There is no harm in him.” Ibn Ḥibbān made a gross error concerning him, which I pointed out in my book Taysīr al-Intifāʿ. May Allah facilitate its completion for me through His grace and generosity.