I say: The correct view is that it should be deemed defective on account of the unnamed man, for he is unknown. He is not mentioned in Ibn al-Jawzī’s chain, nor, apparently, in al-Ṭabarānī’s route, judging from al-Haythamī’s wording—the version containing Maslamah ibn Makhlad.
This Jabalah apparently is Jabalah ibn ʿAṭiyyah al-Filasṭīnī, whose biography appears in al-Tahdhīb. A number of people narrated from him, including this al-Rāsibī, and Ibn Maʿīn and Ibn Ḥibbān declared him trustworthy. Al-Dhahabī likewise declared him trustworthy in al-Kāshif.
His treatment in al-Mīzān indicates that he distinguished between the authenticated al-Filasṭīnī and this Jabalah ibn ʿAṭiyyah, for he listed the latter in al-Mīzān without a geographical attribution and said:
“He is unknown, and the report is utterly rejected. It comes by way of two trustworthy narrators from Abū Hilāl Muḥammad ibn Sulaym, who said: Jabalah narrated to us from a man…”
He then cited the hadith.
Al-Ḥāfiẓ commented on this in al-Lisān, saying:
“Perhaps the flaw in the hadith lies with the unknown man. As for Jabalah, Ibn Abī Ḥātim related Ibn Maʿīn’s declaration that he was trustworthy…”
- As for the mursal report of Shurayḥ ibn ʿUbayd, Aḥmad said in al-Faḍāʾil (1749): Abū al-Mughīrah narrated to us; Ṣafwān narrated to us; Shurayḥ ibn ʿUbayd narrated to me that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, supplicated for Muʿāwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān: “O Allah…”—the hadith with the wording cited in the heading.
I say: This is an authentic mursal Syrian chain of transmission; its narrators are trustworthy. Shurayḥ ibn ʿUbayd was the Ḥaḍramī of Ḥimṣ, a trustworthy Successor. He narrated from a number of the Companions and transmitted mursal reports from others.