Muhammad ibn Ishaq, who was Abu Ja‘far al-Bajali al-Hulwani. Al-Khatib profiled him (5/212) and related declarations of his trustworthiness from a number of hadith masters. He died in 296 AH. Sa‘id ibn Sulayman was Abu ‘Uthman al-Wasiti, the trustworthy hadith master.

He was corroborated by Ibrahim ibn Mihshar, who said: “Ubaydah ibn Humayd narrated to us,” with the same chain, except that he said, “Tamim ibn Tarfah” in place of “Tamim ibn Salamah.” However, this Ibrahim is weak. Ibn ‘Adi said in al-Kamil (1/272—al-Fikr): “He has rejected reports owing to chains that are not preserved.”

It was recorded by al-Bazzar (4/217–218/3567) and al-Bayhaqi in al-Shu‘ab (2/320/2). Al-Haythami said in Majma‘ al-Zawa’id (10/221): “Al-Bazzar narrated it from his shaykh Ibrahim ibn Mujashshir—with a jim—whom Ibn Hibban and others declared trustworthy, though he is weak. The rest of its narrators are narrators of the Sahih.”

I say: I have not seen anyone report that anyone besides Ibn Hibban declared him trustworthy; and even Ibn Hibban said of him: “He makes mistakes.” Such a narrator cannot be relied upon as proof when he is alone in reporting, much less when he contradicts others. Thus, the main basis for deeming the hadith authentic is Sa‘id ibn Sulayman al-Wasiti. This is a precious benefit that I derived from Mu‘jam Ibn Qani‘.

When I compiled Sahih al-Targhib wa al-Tarhib, I did not include it, despite al-Mundhiri’s statement concerning it (1/24): “Al-Bazzar narrated it with a chain in which there is no harm, but there is disagreement as to whether al-Dahhak ibn Qays was a Companion.” This was because I learned through al-Majma‘ that al-Bazzar’s chain contained that weak shaykh, and I had not come across this strong corroboration from Sa‘id. Praise be to Allah for granting success, and I ask Him for more of His bounty.