Zayd ibn Jud‘an is weak, and there is disagreement over the criticism of Yusuf ibn Mihran. And Allah knows best.” This is how it appears in his al-Fatawa (pp. 120–121).

I say: There are points requiring consideration in both of these citations, as will be explained below:

First: The weakness of a hadith’s chain of transmission does not necessarily entail the weakness of its text, because of the corroborating reports to which I referred above and whose documentation follows. They are free from severe weakness; indeed, some of their chains are authentic, as will be seen.

Second: Al-Nawawi fell considerably short in attributing it to Abu Ya‘la alone, for it was also reported by scholars of a higher rank than him, such as Ibn Abi Shaybah and Ahmad.

Third: Al-Haythami’s singling out of Ahmad by saying that its narrators are the narrators of the Sahih is unwarranted, since Abu Ya‘la’s narrators are likewise.

Fourth: His statement, “Its narrators are the narrators of the Sahih,” is mistaken—or perhaps he thought that this Yusuf ibn Mihran was Yusuf ibn Mahak ibn Mihran, who is cited in the two Sahihs. This was the view of some scholars, but the correct view is that they are not the same person, as al-Mizzi, al-Dhahabi, and al-‘Asqalani decisively affirmed. Abu Zur‘ah and others declared him trustworthy.

Fifth: His including al-Bazzar alongside Ahmad and Abu Ya‘la suggests that al-Bazzar reported it through this route, but this is not so. Rather, he reported it through the following route. This was not noticed by the commentator—or the two commentators—on Musnad Abu Ya‘la, having been misled by the forthcoming note of Shaykh al-A‘zami.

The second route: from Muhammad ibn ‘Awn al-Khurasani, from ‘Ikrimah, from Ibn ‘Abbas. It was reported by al-Bazzar (3/109/2359) and Ibn ‘Asakir (18/93).

I say: This al-Khurasani is an abandoned narrator, so it is to be feared that he erred in its chain of transmission.