Yet one cannot be confident of this, since Abu al-Jamahir alone narrated from him. Rather, he is more properly regarded as of unknown status, as required by the principles of hadith criticism: a narrator’s unknown status is not removed merely by a single person’s narration from him.

However, the hadith has corroborating reports that raise it to the level of good, at the very least. Among them is the hadith of Ibn Abbas, which reads:

“I guarantee a house in the gardens of Paradise, a house in its highest part, and a house in its lowest part, for one who abandons disputation even when he is in the right, abandons lying even in jest, and has good character.”

Al-Tabarani narrated it in al-Mu'jam al-Kabir (3/116/1) through Suwayd Abu Hatim, who said: “‘Abd al-Malik, narrating from ‘Ata’, informed us, from ‘Ata’, from Ibn Abbas, as a Prophetic report.”

I say: This is a weak chain because of this Suwayd, namely Ibn Ibrahim. Al-Dhahabi included him in al-Du'afa' and said:

“Al-Nasa’i declared him weak.”

Al-Hafiz said in al-Taqrib:

“Truthful, but of poor retention; he made mistakes, and Ibn Hibban spoke of him in exceptionally harsh terms.”

After attributing it to al-Tabarani (8/23), al-Haythami said:

“It contains Abu Hatim Suwayd ibn Ibrahim, whom the majority declared weak, whereas Ibn Ma‘in declared him trustworthy; the rest of its narrators are narrators of the Sahih.”

I say: Had he said, “Ibn Ma‘in declared him trustworthy in one report,” it would have been closer to what is correct, for Abu Dawud said: “I heard Yahya ibn Ma‘in declare him weak.”

Thus, in this report Ibn Ma‘in agrees with the majority, so it is more deserving of acceptance.

As for al-Haythami’s statement elsewhere (1/157):

“Its chain is good, Allah willing,”

this is an evident instance of leniency on his part,