So he said! In this judgment, he was merely following Ibn Maʿīn, while overlooking the qualification he himself had made of Ibn Maʿīn in al-Mīzān:

“I say: Abū Zurʿah and Abū Ḥātim narrated from him, and his standing is close to acceptable, Allah Most High willing.”

The hadith master endorsed this in al-Lisān, saying:

“Ibn Abī Ḥātim mentioned him without impugning him. Al-Ḥākim cited him in al-Mustadrak as evidence, and Ibn Ḥibbān listed him in al-Thiqāt [9/12].”

Al-Haythamī said in Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid (9/317):

“Al-Ṭabarānī and al-Bazzār narrated it through Fayḍ ibn Wathīq, from Abū ʿUbādah al-Zuraqī; both are weak.”

In al-Mustadrak and al-Talkhīṣ, it appears as “Abū ʿUmārah”! Perhaps this is why al-Dhahabī did not identify its defect on Abū ʿUbādah’s account, since he did not recognize him; for it is a textual corruption. And Allah knows best.

Another textual corruption is that Fayḍ appears in Kashf al-Astār as “al-Faḍl”! Shaykh al-Aʿẓamī did not recognize him and commented:

“This is how it appears in the original; in al-Zawāʾid, it is ‘Fayḍ’!”

That was the extent of his knowledge!

In sum, the hadith is authentic through these corroborating chains and supporting reports. Yet it did not escape the assault of that wrecker called Ḥassān, who rejected it in his commentary on Ighāthat al-Lahfān. I have refuted him in a book I am presently preparing, in which I critique the authentic hadiths that he has declared weak, and I have shown that it has other supporting reports—all of which he ignored! May Allah deal with him as he deserves. *