“Thus, the hadith has a good chain of transmission, for its two narrators are obscure persons whose suitability has not been established, yet neither has been criticised; moreover, their hadith has a strong corroborating report.”

In al-ʿUshāriyyāt (the first hadith), folio 3b, he said:

“Al-Hafiz Diya al-Din al-Maqdisi also narrated it in his book The Selected Hadiths Not Found in Either of the Two Sahihs, through two routes to al-Tabarani.” He then said:

“Neither al-Bukhari nor Ibn Abi Hatim mentioned Zuhayr in their respective books, nor did they mention Ziyad ibn Tariq. Muhammad ibn Ishaq narrated from ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb, from his father, from his grandfather, something similar to this account and the poetry. Al-Tabarani related it in full through his chain. I say: I know of no precedent for al-Hafiz Diya al-Din in grading it authentic; nevertheless, its narrators have not been criticised, and each of them explicitly stated that he heard it from his shaykh. It is therefore a singular, isolated report, and there is no basis for declaring it weak!”

I say: As regards Ibn Rumahis, yes, there is no basis for weakening it on his account.

As for Ziyad ibn Tariq, however, there is grounds to weaken it because of him, since he is unknown—as was previously cited from al-Hafiz, reporting from al-Bawardi that he was unknown, a judgment which al-Hafiz endorsed. He likewise did so in his biography in al-Lisan, just as he endorsed al-Dhahabi’s statement concerning him: “An unidentified person, not known.”

So how can the chain of his hadith be deemed good?! Especially since al-Dhahabi considered it defective on account of a disqualifying hidden defect, as he saw it; but al-Hafiz refuted him on this point, and was correct. The defect, rather, is Ziyad’s unknown status.

Yes, it may be said that it is good on account of corroborating evidence, owing to the supporting report indicated by Diya al-Din al-Maqdisi from Ibn Ishaq’s narration in al-Tabarani; for he transmitted it immediately after the hadith under discussion—