“There is cause for reservation concerning him, in view of what al-Hafiz Abu al-Hasan al-Qattan mentioned in al-Wahm wa-l-Iham: Muslim—may Allah Most High have mercy on him—did not rely on him as proof, but narrated from him only as corroboration, just as al-Bukhari did.”

Strangely, Ibn Tahir al-Maqdisi, in his book al-Jamʿ bayna Rijal al-Sahihayn, did not draw attention to what Ibn al-Qattan mentioned. Allah knows best.

I have found another chain for the hadith, as well as a supporting report.

As for the chain, Abu al-Shaykh transmitted it in Tabaqat al-Asbahaniyyin (182/179), and through him al-Shajari in al-Amali (1/57). He said: Abu Ali ibn Ibrahim narrated to us; Muhammad ibn Amir narrated to us; my father narrated to us; al-Nuʿman narrated to us; Abu Bakr narrated to us, from Sharik ibn Abdullah ibn Abi Namir, from Anas ibn Malik, who said: … and he mentioned it, except that he said: “And increase us in knowledge beyond our knowledge,” in the plural form. He likewise used the plural form in the two preceding passages, and added:

“Abu Ali said: Hatim ibn Yunus was with us, and he said: ‘This Abu Bakr was from Basra.’”

I say: If only he had named him, for there were many Basran narrators of this generation who bore this kunyah. Among them were al-Rabiʿ ibn Subayh, Imran ibn Muslim al-Minqari, Quraysh ibn Anas al-Ansari, Wuhayb ibn Khalid al-Bahili—the client of the Bahilah tribe—and Abu Bakr ibn Shuʿayb ibn al-Habhab al-Miʿwali. All of them are trustworthy, though al-Rabiʿ has been criticized. There is also Abu Bakr al-Hudhali, whose hadith are weak, as stated in al-Mizan. However, al-Hafiz al-Mizzi did not mention any of these in Sharik ibn Abdullah’s biographical entry among those who narrated from him. Rather, he mentioned Abu Bakr ibn Abdullah ibn Abi Sabrah, who was a Medinan abandoned narrator accused of fabricating reports. Allah knows best.