The second is Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad al-Muharibi, who has two routes from him:

The first: from al-Ala ibn Amr al-Hanafi: Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad al-Muharibi narrated to us; Muhammad ibn Amr narrated to us from him.

Al-Hakim (1/523) recorded it and said:

“An authentic hadith according to Muslim’s criteria.”

Al-Dhahabi agreed with him!

I say: This is one of his errors, for this al-Hanafi is abandoned, as al-Dhahabi himself stated in al-Mizan. There he cited from him a hadith concerning the merit of the Arabs and said of it: “Fabricated,” as noted earlier under no. 160. When al-Hakim likewise declared it authentic, al-Dhahabi criticized him, saying:

“Al-Ala ibn Amr al-Hanafi is not a reliable authority.”

The second: Muhammad ibn Isma'il—namely, Ibn Samurah al-Ahmasi: Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad al-Muharibi narrated to us from Muhammad ibn Amr, from him.

Al-Bazzar (4/59/3193) recorded it: Muhammad ibn Isma'il narrated to us from him. He said:

“We know it from the hadith of Muhammad ibn Amr only through al-Muharibi.”

That is what he said! Yet what has preceded and what follows refute it. All the narrators in its chain are trustworthy, so the chain is good, in view of the well-known disagreement regarding Muhammad ibn Amr, were it not for the fact that al-Muharibi was accused of concealment in transmission and has used an ambiguous ‘from’ formula here, as you see. However, he explicitly stated direct narration in the first route; but it contains the abandoned al-Ala, so it cannot be relied upon. Thus, al-Haythami’s grading of al-Bazzar’s chain as good (10/178) is unsound.

It is, however, good by virtue of the forthcoming corroborating chain: