The second is Saʿīd ibn ʿAnbasah al-Qaṭṭān, who apparently is Abū ʿUthmān al-Khazzāz al-Rāzī, whom Ibn Abī Ḥātim mentioned (2/1/52) and concerning whom he quoted his father as saying:

“There is cause for concern regarding him.”

He then related from ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥusayn ibn al-Junayd, who said: “Saʿīd ibn ʿAnbasah is a liar. I heard my father say: ‘He was not truthful.’”

Al-Haythamī likewise deemed it defective on his account, saying (4/244):

“Al-Ṭabarānī reported it, and its chain includes Saʿīd ibn ʿAnbasah, who is weak.”

The third is Muḥammad ibn ʿUthmān al-Jazarī, for whom I likewise found no biographical entry.

I then found a reasonably sound corroborator for Saʿīd ibn ʿAnbasah, through whom we learned Abū Maʿdān’s name. Ṣurad ibn Ḥammād, Abū Sahl, reported it, saying: Al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥakam ibn Ṭahmān narrated to us; Abū Maʿdān narrated to us the same hadith.

Al-Khaṭīb recorded it in al-Tārīkh (9/343) and said:

“Abū Maʿdān alone narrated it. It is a singular report among the narrations of Abū Maʿdān, ʿAbd Allāh ibn Maʿdān. Al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥakam alone narrated it from him. I know of no one other than Ṣurad who narrated it, and I know nothing of his condition except good.”

I say: Regarding this Ibn Ṭahmān, Ibn Abī Ḥātim quoted his father as saying:

“His hadith is acceptable, though he is not especially strong; he is inconsistent.”

ʿAbd Allāh ibn Maʿdān was also narrated from by Wakīʿ and Abū Nuʿaym, as stated in al-Jarḥ; while al-Dhahabī, in al-Muqtaṇā fī al-Kunā, gives al-Bursānī in place of Abū Nuʿaym.