For this reason, al-Hafiz said in al-Taqrib:

“Weak.”

I say: Accordingly, declaring its chain of transmission good is far-fetched. Yet it may be said that it is suitable to be cited as supporting evidence, or that his hadith is good on account of supporting reports. And Allah knows best.

I do not think that its chain in al-Tabarani’s al-Kabir is other than this route. I say this because the volume containing the reports of Abu Barzah—whose name was Nadlah—has not yet been printed.

Third: The hadith of Ali has already been traced to its sources, and it has been shown that its chain, in al-Daraqutni’s narration, is good. It is further strengthened by the report preceding it and the one that follows it.

Fourth: The hadith of Anas ibn Malik, narrated by Muhammad ibn Thabit from his father, from him.

Al-Tabarani recorded it in al-Muʿjam al-Saghir. I have already traced it to its sources in al-Rawd al-Nadir (no. 78), so I shall not speak at length about it.

Muhammad ibn Thabit is weak, as al-Haythami and al-Asqalani stated.

Fifth: The hadith of Abu Masʿud, ʿUqbah ibn ʿAmr. This was cited by al-Hafiz, though not by his teacher al-Haythami, as a narration of al-Tabarani. He said:

“Its chain of transmission is good!”

That is what he said, but it is open to question. For it appears in al-Tabarani’s al-Muʿjam al-Kabir (17/242/674) through the route of Ali ibn al-Jaʿd: ʿAbd al-Malik ibn al-Husayn narrated to us, from ʿAbd al-Malik ibn ʿUmayr, from Abu ʿAbd Allah al-Barrad, from ʿUqbah ibn ʿAmr.

I say: If ʿAbd al-Malik ibn al-Husayn is Abu Malik al-Nakhaʿi al-Wasiti, then he is abandoned,