There is some basis for this. Yet al-Dhahabī disagreed with him, saying in al-Mīzān:

“Who is he? He is unknown.”

If al-Ḥāfiẓ deemed him truthful, and four narrators transmitted from him, then there can be no doubt that, in the sound assessment of a man from whom eight—indeed, nine—reliable narrators transmitted, the defect cannot be pinned on him when there is someone higher up the chain who is more deserving of it.

Strangely, al-Ḥāfiẓ overlooked the fact that Abū Fāṭimah has biographical entries in the three aforementioned sources: al-Tārīkh, al-Jarḥ, and al-Thiqāt. He also mentioned him very briefly in his own work, al-Lisān, saying (6/28–29):

“Miskīn Abū Fāṭimah narrated from al-Tammār ibn Yazīd, and al-ʿAbbās ibn al-Walīd al-Narsī narrated from him. Al-Dāraquṭnī said: ‘Weak in hadith.’”

I say: This is an unexplained declaration of weakness, and I fear that it may be like Abū Ḥātim’s declaration of weakness, whose flimsiness I have demonstrated. And Allah knows best.

Moreover, Miskīn Abū Fāṭimah was not alone in narrating it; rather, ʿUbayd Allāh ibn ʿUmar corroborated him from Nāfiʿ, with the additional wording:

“This righteous servant, for whom the Throne shook, the gates of heaven were opened, and seventy thousand angels—who had never before descended to earth—attended him, was indeed squeezed ...” and so on.

Ibn Saʿd recorded it in al-Ṭabaqāt (3/430): Ismāʿīl ibn Abī Masʿūd reported to us; he said: ʿAbd Allāh ibn Idrīs reported to us; he said: ʿUbayd Allāh ibn ʿUmar reported it to us through the same chain.

Al-Khaṭīb likewise recorded it through this route in al-Tārīkh (6/250), in the biographical entry on Ismāʿīl