“It is singular from the narration of Muḥammad ibn al-Munkadir from Saʿīd; the preserved version is Abū Suhayl’s narration from him.”

I say: Its hidden defect lies either with Yaʿqūb ibn Muḥammad al-Zuhrī, for he frequently erred, as stated in al-Taqrīb; or with Muḥammad ibn Yūnus al-Baṣrī—and this is more likely—since he was accused of fabrication. He was al-Kudaymī. Al-Dhahabī said in al-Mughnī:

“He was ruined. Ibn Ḥibbān and others said: ‘He used to fabricate hadiths and attribute them to reliable narrators.’”

Some weak narrators produced a corroborating narration for Muḥammad ibn Ṭalḥah. Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn al-Sarī al-Tamīmī narrated to us: Aḥmad ibn Mūsā ibn Isḥāq al-Ḥammār al-Kūfī narrated to us: ʿAbd Allah ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Numayrī al-Baṣrī narrated to us: Muṭarrif ibn ʿAbd Allah narrated to us from Mālik ibn Anas, from his uncle Abū Suhayl ibn Mālik, with it.

Ibn ʿAsākir also recorded it and said:

“This is a singular report from Mālik’s narration from his uncle Abū Suhayl. The preserved version is the narration of Muḥammad ibn Ṭalḥah ibn al-Ṭawīl from Abū Suhayl.”

He then cited it through the routes indicated at the beginning of the documentation, from Muḥammad ibn Ṭalḥah.

The flaw in this route is Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn al-Sarī al-Tamīmī, for he was a Rāfiḍī—an extremist Shiite—and a liar, as stated in al-Mīzān and al-Lisān. This is assuming it is free of the problem of ʿAbd Allah ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Numayrī al-Baṣrī, for he is unknown, and al-Dāraquṭnī declared it defective on his account. He recorded it in Gharāʾib Mālik through the route of Aḥmad ibn Mūsā ibn Isḥāq from him, and said: