It has, however, been corroborated—contrary to the extent of al-Bazzar’s knowledge. Ibn Abi Hatim said: “Abu ʿAbd Allah al-Tihrani informed us—in what he wrote to me—saying: ʿAbd al-Razzaq narrated to us...” and then cited it. This is how it appears in Ibn Kathir, without identifying who it was that wrote [to him]. Ibn Mandah has it through the route of Muhammad ibn ʿImad al-Zahrani: “ʿAbd al-Razzaq narrated to us...”

I say: He is Muhammad ibn Hammad—Hammad with an undotted hāʾ—al-Tihrani—the initial ṭāʾ with a kasrah—one of Ibn Majah’s narrators and trustworthy. Those who declared him weak were mistaken, as Ibn Hajar stated in al-Taqrib. He is the same Abu ʿAbd Allah mentioned above by Ibn Abi Hatim.

Muhammad ibn Mahdi al-Ubulli also corroborated them in al-Bayhaqi’s narration. He was the brother of the aforementioned al-Husayn ibn Mahdi. Ibn Hibban likewise declared him trustworthy (9/99 and 122), and Abu Zurʿah narrated from him.

Al-Haythami said in Majmaʿ al-Zawaʾid (7/134):

“Al-Bazzar and al-Tabarani narrated it. The narrators in al-Bazzar’s chain are narrators of the Sahih, apart from Husayn ibn Mahdi al-Ayli (!), who is trustworthy.”

I say: There are two observations concerning this:

First: al-Tabarani also narrated it through al-Husayn, saying: “ʿAbdan ibn Ahmad narrated to us; al-Husayn ibn Mahdi al-Ubulli narrated to us...” Thus, there is no reason, as is apparent, to single out al-Bazzar for mention. ʿAbdan ibn Ahmad was one of the renowned leading hadith scholars, and perhaps he had a stronger memory than al-Bazzar.

Second: The correct attribution is al-Ubulli, with a singly dotted bāʾ carrying a dammah, as it appears in al-Tabarani—not al-Ayli, with the letter bearing two dots below, as it appears in al-Haythami. Al-Aʿzami passed over this without comment, true to his habitual lack of attentiveness and verification!