the indexes of al-Majmaʿ, 3/305). Accordingly, al-Hafiz’s statement in al-Talkhis (2/241), “Its chain of transmission is weak,” is an unjustifiable instance of leniency.

Zayd al-ʿAmmi is weak. He has been corroborated, but the chain to that corroborating report is frail, since it is narrated by ʿUlaylah ibn Badr: Sayyar ibn Salamah narrated to us, from Abu al-ʿAliyah, from Ibn ʿAbbas … Al-Tabarani also recorded it (12/159/12755).

ʿUlaylah is a nickname; his name was al-Rabiʿ, and he too is abandoned. Neither al-Haythami nor al-Hafiz referred to this route.

Second: the hadith of Abu Barzah al-Aslami. Al-Haythami said:

“Al-Tabarani recorded it in al-Kabir and al-Awsat, and its narrators are trustworthy.”

After attributing it to al-Tabarani, al-Hafiz said:

“Its chain of transmission is good.”

I say: I have examined the chain in al-Awsat (6/316/5672, printed edition) and found it to be weak. He recorded it through Yahya ibn Saʿid al-ʿAttar, from Hammad ibn Salamah, from Saʿid ibn Jumhan, from him, and said:

“No one narrated it from Hammad except Yahya al-ʿAttar al-Himsi.”

Concerning this Yahya, al-Dhahabi said in al-Mizan:

“He was a hadith scholar and travelled to Egypt, Iraq, and the Two Sanctuaries. Ibn Musaffa said: ‘Trustworthy.’ Ibn Maʿin said: ‘Weak.’ Abu Dawud said: ‘His hadith is acceptable.’ Ibn Khuzaymah said: ‘He is not to be used as proof.’ Ibn ʿAdi said: ‘His weakness is manifest.’”