Al-Bayhaqi then narrated from Uthman ibn Sa'id al-Darimi, from Duhaym, who said:
“This hadith of Abu al-Darda has no basis.”
I said: That is what he said. Ibn al-Turkumani, however, rebutted him, saying: “I say: Al-Bayhaqi has transmitted it here through a sound chain of transmission, so I do not know why it should be deemed weak or said to have no basis.”
I said: This is a strong rebuttal, supported by the statement of al-Hafiz in al-Talkhis (333):
“Al-Darimi narrated it through a chain meeting Muslim’s conditions, though Muslim did not narrate from his shaykh, Abd al-Rahman ibn Yahya ibn Isma'il. Abu Hatim said concerning him: ‘There is no harm in him.’”
He then mentioned Duhaym’s statement.
I said: Abd al-Rahman ibn Yahya ibn Isma'il was not alone in narrating it; rather, his brother Ibrahim ibn Yahya ibn Isma'il corroborated him. Ibn Asakir transmitted it in his biography (2/284/2), but did not mention any negative or positive evaluation of him.
Ibn Asakir then transmitted it through the route of Hisham ibn Ammar: Amr ibn Waqid informed us; Isma'il ibn Ubayd Allah informed us of it.
I said: This is another route from Isma'il, but it is extremely weak, for Amr ibn Waqid is abandoned, as stated in al-Taqrib. Thus, reliance rests on the first route. You have already learned that Ibn al-Turkumani judged its chain of transmission sound, and al-Hafiz indicated the same. It would indeed merit such a judgment, were it not for two defects:
First: Although Sa'id ibn Abd al-Aziz meets Muslim’s conditions, he became confused in his final years, as stated in al-Taqrib, and we do not know whether he related this before or after his confusion.
Second: Although al-Walid ibn Muslim was one of the narrators relied upon by both al-Bukhari and Muslim, he frequently practised concealment in transmission and chain-leveling—the suppression of a weak intermediary. It is therefore feared that he may have omitted a man between Sa'id and Isma'il; consequently, the omitted narrator may have been weak, such as Amr ibn Waqid or someone else. Perhaps this explains Duhaym’s statement about it