“There is no objection to him, if Allah Most High wills.”

I say: Al-Dhahabi relied on the aforementioned declaration of weakness by al-Suri in al-Mizan and al-Mughni, adding:

“Ibn Mandah said: ‘He is not all that.’”

I say: As for al-Haythami, he considered it defective on account of this shaykh of Ibn Hibban. In al-Majmaʿ (9/171), after citing it only on the authority of Abu Saʿid al-Khudri, he said:

“Al-Tabarani narrated it, and it contains Kathir ibn Yahya, who is weak, although Ibn Hibban declared him trustworthy.”

I say: In the aforementioned weakening, he merely followed al-Dhahabi in al-Mizan, but it is refuted, because it is an unsubstantiated criticism. What is to be relied upon is Ibn Hibban’s declaration that he was trustworthy, as it is supported by others, as I have explained in his biographical notice in Taysir al-Intifaʿ. It is sufficient in this regard that he was among the shaykhs of Abu Zurʿah al-Razi, who narrated only from a trustworthy narrator. Likewise, he was among the shaykhs of Abu Hatim al-Razi in this hadith and others.

Al-Hakim also transmitted it (3/137) through his route: Yahya ibn Kathir narrated to us; Abu ʿAwanah narrated to us—the same report, with the account abridged. He said:

“Its chain of transmission is authentic.”

Al-Dhahabi agreed with him.

It also has another route, transmitted by ʿAli ibn ʿAbis from Abu al-Jahhaf, narrating the same report. Ibn ʿAsakir transmitted it in al-Tarikh (5/40).

However, ʿAli ibn ʿAbis is weak. Thus, the principal reliance is upon the narration of Abu ʿAwanah—whose name was Waddah al-Yashkuri—who was a trustworthy, firmly established narrator among those whose reports are found in the two Sahihs.