“It is not reported from Ibn al-Zubayr except through this chain; Ḥarmalah alone relates it.”

I say: He is trustworthy and is one of Muslim’s narrators, and everyone above him is trustworthy and found in the Two Shaykhs’ collections. Muḥammad ibn Naṣr is Ibn Ḥumayd al-Wāziʿ al-Bazzār; others besides al-Ṭabarānī have called him Aḥmad, as al-Khaṭīb recorded (vol. 3, biography 1411; vol. 5, biography 2625), and he said, “He was trustworthy.”

Al-Haythamī said (2/96):
“Al-Ṭabarānī related it in al-Awsat, and its narrators are the narrators of the Ṣaḥīḥ.”

I say: The chain is authentic, provided that Ibn Jurayj actually heard it from ʿAṭāʾ, for he was a narrator who practiced tadlīs and he has transmitted it with ʿanʿana. Yet his remark at the end of the ḥadīth, “And I have seen ʿAṭāʾ do that,” indicates that he received it from him directly, for it is extremely unlikely that he would hear it from him through an intermediary, then see him acting upon it, and still neither ask him about the report nor raise its chain. That is far-fetched indeed; the correct view, therefore, is that the isnād is sound.

The ḥadīth was also recorded by al-Ḥākim (1/214) and, through him, by al-Bayhaqī (3/106) via the route of Saʿīd ibn al-Ḥakam ibn Abī Maryam, who said: “ʿAbdullāh ibn Wahb informed me of it.”

Al-Ḥākim said: “Authentic according to the criterion of the Two Shaykhs,” and al-Dhahabī concurred, and it is as they said.

What further attests to its soundness is the practice of the Companions after the Prophet ﷺ—among them Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq, Zayd ibn Thābit, and ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd.

1 – Al-Bayhaqī (2/90) narrated from Abū Bakr ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn al-Ḥārith ibn Hishām,