“Then the man from whom Shahr ibn Ḥawshab had narrated came to us, and he narrated this hadith to us.”

I say: This is how it appears in the Musnad: “a man,” without being named. Al-Nasāʾī narrated it in ʿAmal al-Yawm wa al-Laylah (469/805) through al-Ṭayālisī’s chain, identifying him as “Abū Ẓabyah.” He also stated: Thābit said: “Abū Ẓabyah came to us and narrated this hadith to us from Muʿādh.”

Abū Dāwūd likewise narrated it in his Sunan (5042), as did Aḥmad in his Musnad (5/234 and 241), and al-Ṭabarānī in his Muʿjam (20/118/235), through various chains from Ḥammād ibn Salamah, with this wording. Ibn Mājah (3881) also narrated it, but without Thābit’s statement.

I say: Abū Ẓabyah was al-Salafī al-Ḥimṣī. A number of trustworthy narrators, besides Thābit al-Bunānī, narrated from him. Thus, al-Ḥāfiẓ’s restricting himself to describing him as “acceptable” is itself unacceptable—especially since Ibn Maʿīn and others declared him trustworthy, as I mentioned under hadith 595. I add here that al-Mundhirī said in al-Targhīb (1/207):

“A trustworthy Syrian.”

Thus, the hadith under discussion—through the second chain, from Ḥammād, from Thābit, from Abū Ẓabyah—is authentic. As for its first chain—from Thābit, from Shahr, from Abū Ẓabyah—it is weak, though it may serve as corroboration in view of Shahr’s well-known weakness.

Through this authentic chain alone, it was narrated by Ibn Mājah (3881) and al-Aṣbahānī in al-Targhīb (2/557/1330), and it is also one of Aḥmad’s narrations (5/244).

Note: The commentator on Mawārid al-Ẓamʾān (1/287, Damascus edition) has missed two facts: