Rushdayn ibn Saʿd likewise narrated it, saying: ʿAmr ibn al-Ḥārith related to me from Abū ʿAshānah, with it. Ibn al-Mubārak recorded it in al-Zuhd (349).

Al-Haythamī said of the hadith in al-Majmaʿ (10/270): “It was narrated by Aḥmad, Abū Yaʿlā, and al-Ṭabarānī, and its chain of transmission is good.” Our brother Ḥamdī al-Salafī, however, challenged this in his annotations to al-Muʿjam, saying: “I say: Not so. None of those who narrated from Ibn Lahīʿah was among the ʿAbādilah; therefore, it is weak.” For this reason, the annotator of Abū Yaʿlā also declared it weak.

I say: Declaring Ibn Lahīʿah’s hadith weak is indeed the general rule, but both of them overlooked al-Rūyānī’s narration of it through Ibn Wahb, who was one of the ʿAbādilah to whom brother al-Salafī referred. Thus, the hadith is authentic, and all praise is due to Allah.

Qutaybah ibn Saʿīd may also be counted alongside the ʿAbādilah, for he narrated it from Ibn Lahīʿah, as you have seen. This is supported by what al-Dhahabī mentioned in Qutaybah’s biography in Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ (8/15), through the narration of Jaʿfar al-Firyābī: “I heard some of our companions mention that he heard Qutaybah say: Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal said to me, ‘Your hadiths from Ibn Lahīʿah are authentic.’ I replied, ‘That is because we used to copy from Ibn Wahb’s book, and then hear it from Ibn Lahīʿah.’”

I say: This does not contradict what al-Athram narrated from Aḥmad—as cited in al-Tahdhīb—that he mentioned Qutaybah, praised him, and said: “He was the last to hear from Ibn Lahīʿah.” I say: That is because he relied on Ibn Wahb’s book, rather than on what he heard from Ibn Lahīʿah. And Allah knows best.