All its narrators are trustworthy except ʿUmar ibn Ismāʿīl, who is abandoned and cannot be used even as corroborative evidence. Al-Ḥāfiẓ identified this as its defect in al-Fatḥ (10/129), saying: “Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn declared ʿUmar to be a liar.”

Strangely, al-Ḥāfiẓ cited this route to reinforce the fact that the foregoing report attributed to the Companion in al-Bukhārī’s narration was also narrated as attributed to the Prophet. Yet he overlooked the first route, which is far superior to this one; likewise, he overlooked the authentic chain of Hannād and other reports to follow—confirming the well-known proverb: “How much have the earlier scholars left for those who came after?!”

Third: from Sharīk, from Abū Isḥāq, from Ḥārithah ibn Muḍarrib, who said: We entered upon Khabbāb while a wall was being built in his house. He said: “I heard the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, say”—then he mentioned it with the wording of ʿUmar ibn Ismāʿīl. This indicates that a liar may at times speak the truth, let alone one merely accused of lying, as the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, indicated in the account of Satan with Abū Hurayrah, may Allah be pleased with him: “He has told you the truth, though he is a liar.”

This route is a strong supporting witness for the hadith under discussion, since all its narrators are trustworthy except Sharīk—namely, Sharīk ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Qāḍī—who was weak due to his poor memory. Thus, he may be used in corroborating transmissions and supporting reports. Indeed, some scholars deemed his hadith authentic, including al-Tirmidhī, al-Ḥākim, and others. Al-Tirmidhī in particular strengthened this very hadith: he recorded it (2485), as did Ibn Mājah (4163) and al-Ṭabarānī (3675). Al-Tirmidhī said after it: “A good, authentic hadith.” Al-Ḥāfiẓ endorsed this (11/92).

Fourth: from ʿUbayd Allāh ibn Zaḥr, from ʿAlī ibn Yazīd, from al-Qāsim, from Abū Umāmah, from Khabbāb, who said: “I heard the Messenger of Allah say:”