What lends support to this is that ʿAbd Allāh and Saʿīd were brothers. Al-Athram said: “I asked Aḥmad, ‘Were Saʿīd and ʿAbd Allāh brothers?’ He replied, ‘Yes.’ I asked, ‘Which of them do you prefer?’ He said, ‘Both are good hadith narrators in my view.’”

It is therefore not far-fetched that each of them heard the hadith from their father, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān: Salamah narrated it directly from ʿAbd Allāh, and through Dharr from Saʿīd. Thus, Sufyān and Shuʿbah each narrated what he had heard, and both were trustworthy narrators with retentive memories. Perhaps this reconciliation is preferable to declaring Shuʿbah mistaken. Allah knows best.

In any case, the hadith is authentic, for the two brothers were trustworthy, although Saʿīd was more trustworthy. Both Shaykhs relied upon him. As for ʿAbd Allāh, Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in al-Thiqāt (7/9), as did Ibn Khalafūn; and al-Ḥākim (2/240–241) and al-Dhahabī graded his hadith authentic. A number of trustworthy narrators also transmitted from him. Thus, al-Ḥāfiẓ’s statement in al-Taqrīb, “acceptable,” is itself unacceptable. What is more accurate is his statement in Natāʾij al-Afkār (2/380): “He is a good hadith narrator, as Imam Aḥmad stated.” The chain of transmission is therefore good, particularly in light of the aforementioned reconciliation between the narrations of Sufyān and Shuʿbah.

He was corroborated by one whose corroboration gives little cause for satisfaction: Yaḥyā ibn Salamah ibn Kuhayl. However, he differed from him regarding the Companion who narrated the hadith, saying: from his father, from ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Abzā, from his father, from Ubayy ibn Kaʿb. Al-Ṭabarānī recorded it in this manner, through two routes from him, under no. 293.