(4/366), Abū Yaʿlā (13/497/7508), and al-Ṭabarānī in al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr (2/377/2380), all three through ʿAbd al-Razzāq; as well as Aḥmad (4/364 and 366), al-Ṭabarānī (2381–2385), and al-Aṣbahānī in al-Targhīb wa’l-Tarhīb (1/154/290), through several routes, including that of Shuʿbah—from whom al-Bayhaqī gives this wording—from Abū Isḥāq, from ʿUbayd Allāh ibn Jarīr, from his father, who said: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said: … and he cited it.

I say: This is a good chain of transmission. Its narrators are known and trustworthy, apart from ʿUbayd Allāh ibn Jarīr: no one other than Ibn Ḥibbān (5/65) declared him trustworthy. However, two other trustworthy narrators reported from him; thus, especially as he was one of the Successors, his hadith is good, Allah Most High willing. Al-Mundhirī indicated in al-Targhīb (3/170) that this particular hadith of his is good.

Abū Isḥāq explicitly affirmed direct hearing in Shuʿbah’s narration from him, as recorded by al-Aṣbahānī.

Shurayk, however, differed from Shuʿbah—and those who concurred with him in the chain of transmission—and reported it from Abū Isḥāq, from al-Mundhir ibn Jarīr, from his father, attributed to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, with the same wording. Thus, he named al-Mundhir in place of ʿUbayd Allāh. Al-Mundhir is better known than his brother and is among the narrators of Muslim.

It was recorded by Aḥmad (4/136, 363, and 366), Abū ʿAmr al-Dānī in al-Fitan (folio 36/2), and al-Ṭabarānī (2379). Shurayk is Ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Qāḍī, and he had poor retention; therefore, his solitary reports cannot be used as proof. How, then, when he contradicts trustworthy narrators—among whom is Shuʿbah!

From this analysis, you may know the error of the annotator of Mushkil al-Āthār (3/214) in his statement concerning its narrator, ʿUbayd Allāh ibn Jarīr:

“His brother al-Mundhir corroborated him!”

I say: You now know that this is a contradiction, not corroboration.