I say: This is a weak chain of transmission. Concerning ʿAbd Allāh ibn Zayd, al-Ḥāfiẓ said: “Truthful, but with some weakness.”

I say: A narrator like this would render his hadith at least fair by virtue of corroboration, provided that the narrators below him in the chain are unobjectionable. So let us examine.

Isḥāq ibn Muḥammad al-Farawī was one of al-Bukhārī’s narrators, but al-Ḥāfiẓ said: “Truthful; he lost his sight, and his memory then deteriorated.” Thus, he is like the one before him.

It remains to examine the narrator who reported from him: ʿAbd Allāh ibn Shabīb. He has an unfavourable biography in al-Mīzān and Lisān al-Mīzān, and no one declared him reliable. The best that was said of him is al-Dāraquṭnī’s statement: “Others besides ʿAbd Allāh ibn Shabīb are more reliable than him.”

Therefore, al-Dhahabī said: “A highly learned authority in historical reports, but weak.” Thus, using it as corroborating evidence is open to question. And Allah knows best.

Nor was al-ʿUmarī alone in narrating it. Al-Ṭabarānī said in al-Muʿjam al-Awsaṭ (2/86/2/6378): Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī al-Ṣāʾigh narrated to us; he said: Khālid ibn Yazīd al-ʿUmarī narrated to us; he said: ʿAbd Allāh ibn Zayd ibn Aslam narrated to us with the same report. He then said: “No one narrated it from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Zayd ibn Aslam except al-ʿUmarī!”

That is what he said. It seems that he was unaware of al-Farawī’s corroborating narration, or that he did not regard the chain of transmission to him as valid. This is a more balanced assessment than al-Ḥāfiẓ’s statement (1/143): “I say: He erred in that.”