and most of them are trustworthy. Ibn Ḥibbān included him in al-Thiqāt (9/35). Abū Zurʿah al-Dimashqī also mentioned him in Tasmiyat Nafar Dhawī Isnād wa-ʿIlm, as Ibn ʿAsākir noted. I did not find him in Abū Zurʿah’s printed Tārīkh Dimashq.
- As for Abū al-Ashʿath al-Ṣanʿānī—whose name was Shurāḥīl ibn Āddah—he was trustworthy and one of Muslim’s narrators.
Thus, the chain of transmission is sound, praise be to Allah. This is one of the routes which the commentator on al-Iḥsān failed to mention among the routes of the hadith that he cited; all of them contain either weakness, an unidentified narrator, or a break in transmission. For this reason, he did not explicitly state the hadith’s rank. Yet, in his edition of al-Mawārid (2/1089), he explicitly declared it weak immediately afterward.
Among those routes is the one he attributed to al-Ḥākim (1/508), through the route of ʿUmar ibn Yūnus ibn al-Qāsim al-Yamāmī, from ʿIkrimah ibn ʿAmmār, who said: “I heard Shaddād Abū ʿAmmār narrating from Shaddād ibn Aws.” The commentator said:
“Al-Ḥākim authenticated it according to Muslim’s criteria, and al-Dhahabī agreed with him.”
He left this without comment and did not take either of them to task, although their error in this is obvious, since it is narrated through Abū al-Ḥasan Muḥammad ibn Sinān al-Qazzāz, who said: “ʿUmar ibn Yūnus narrated to us…”
I say: First, this al-Qazzāz was not one of Muslim’s narrators; moreover, he was subject to criticism. Al-Dhahabī himself included him in al-Mīzān and said:
“Abū Dāwūd accused him of lying, and Ibn Khirāsh said: ‘He is not trustworthy.’ As for al-Dāraquṭnī, he regarded him as acceptable and said: ‘There is no harm in him.’”
Therefore, al-Ḥāfiẓ decisively judged him weak in al-Taqrīb.