“He was accused of fabrication.”

As for the ḥadīth of Abū Hurayrah, it is transmitted by Abū Bakr ibn ʿAyyāsh, who said: “From Ibn ʿAṭāʾ, from his father, from Abū Hurayrah,” raised to the Prophet. Al-Dāraqutnī recorded it, and al-Zaylaʿī faulted it on account of this Abū Bakr, saying, “He is disputed.” Ibn Rajab, for his part, criticised it because of Ibn ʿAṭāʾ, saying, “He is Yaʿqūb and he is weak.”

As for the ḥadīth of Jābir, it is related by Ḥayyān ibn Bishr the judge, who said: “Ḥammād ibn Salamah narrated to us from Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq, from Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyā ibn Ḥibbān, from his uncle Wāsiʿ ibn Ḥibbān, from him.” Al-Ṭabarānī recorded it in al-Muʿjam al-Awsat, and al-Zaylaʿī remained silent about it.

Ibn Rajab said, “Its chain of transmission is reasonably acceptable, and it is a singular report (gharīb). Abū Dāwūd included it in al-Marāsīl through the route of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Mughraʾ, from Ibn Isḥāq, from Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyā ibn Ḥibbān, from his uncle Wāsiʿ, as a mursal report— and that version is sounder.”

I say: The report pivots on Ibn Isḥāq, who practised tadlīs and transmits it with a ʿanʿana (i.e., using the ambiguous word “from”). As for Ḥayyān ibn Bishr who appears in the connected chain, Ibn Maʿīn said, “There is no problem with him.” He has an entry in Taʾrīkh Baghdād (8/285). It has also been reported from Wāsiʿ ibn Ḥibbān, from Abū Lubābah, from the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him.

Abū Dāwūd recorded this version in al-Marāsīl, as cited by al-Zaylaʿī, but he did not supply its chain of transmission for us to scrutinise.