Muḥammad ibn Ḥumayr narrated to us; ʿAmr ibn Qays al-Kindī narrated to us, from ʿAbd Allah ibn Qurṭ, who narrated it.

I say: The assessment of this chain of transmission is much the same as that of the preceding one, for its narrators too are narrators of al-Bukhārī, apart from Aḥmad ibn al-Muʿallā al-Dimashqī, who was trustworthy and is profiled in al-Tahdhīb, just as ʿAbd Allah ibn Aḥmad is. I said “much the same” only because Hishām ibn ʿAmmār, despite being not merely one of al-Bukhārī’s narrators but one of his teachers in the Ṣaḥīḥ, has been subject to considerable criticism. This is illustrated by al-Dhahabī’s statement in al-Mughnī:

“Trustworthy and prolific, though he has reports that are rejected. Abū Ḥātim said: ‘Truthful, but he deteriorated, and whenever he was prompted, he accepted it.’ Abū Dāwūd said: ‘He narrated more than four hundred hadith that have no basis.’”

Al-Ḥāfiẓ said in al-Taqrīb:

“Truthful, a Qur’an reciter; in old age he began accepting promptings, so his earlier hadith are sounder.”

I say: Because of this acceptance of promptings, I cannot judge his chain of transmission to be authentic—especially since he contradicted the trustworthy al-Haytham ibn Khārijah regarding the name of the Companion in this hadith. He named him “ʿAbd Allah ibn Qurṭ,” whereas al-Haytham said, “ʿĀʾidh ibn Qurṭ,” which is correct.

Perhaps Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr—the hadith master of al-Andalus—came across only this route through Hishām. For he cited it in al-Tamhīd (24/81), through Muḥammad ibn Ḥumayr, from ʿAmr ibn Qays al-Sakūnī, from ʿAbd Allah ibn Qurṭ, who narrated it, and said:

“In my view, it is a rejected hadith. It is preserved only through this route, and it is not strong.”

I say: In my view, there is no basis for declaring it rejected, unless it reached him through Hishām’s route. Otherwise, the first route is free of this objection—unless he gave weight to what has been said concerning Muḥammad ibn Ḥumayr—