Al-Bayhaqī reported it, as did Abū al-Ḥasan al-Qaṣṣār in His Hadiths from Ibn Abī Ḥātim (2/2), Ibn al-Ḥimṣī al-Ṣūfī in Selections from What He Heard (33/1), and Ibn Mandah in al-Maʿrifah (2/321/2).

Al-Bayhaqī said: “Its chain of transmission is weak. Ibn Lahīʿah alone narrated it.”

I say: Ibn al-Mulaqqin stated in Khulāṣat al-Ibrīz for al-Nabīh, the Preserver of the Evidences of al-Tanbīh (89/2): “They deemed him weak, though some considered him trustworthy.”

Al-Ḥāfiẓ said in Fatḥ al-Bārī (1/266):

“It was reported by Abū Dāwūd and others; there is weakness in its chain of transmission, but it has a corroborating mursal report.”

The author of ʿAwn al-Maʿbūd (1/141–142) quoted this from him and endorsed it!

Al-Ḥāfiẓ also said in Bulūgh al-Marām: “Al-Tirmidhī reported it, and its chain of transmission is weak.”

Its commentator, al-Ṣanʿānī, said (1/55), following his source, Badr al-Tamām (1/29/1): “Al-Bayhaqī likewise reported it, and its chain includes Ibn Lahīʿah.”

A number of scholars were misled by this statement of al-Ḥāfiẓ and, following him, attributed it to al-Tirmidhī. Among them was Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān in al-Rawḍah al-Nadiyyah (1/17), and before him al-Shawkānī in Nayl al-Awṭār, who said (1/35):

“Al-Tirmidhī, Aḥmad, Abū Dāwūd, and al-Bayhaqī reported it through two routes from Khawlah bint Yasār, and its chain includes Ibn Lahīʿah.”

Al-Ḥāfiẓ said the same in al-Talkhīṣ (13), though he did not mention al-Tirmidhī or Aḥmad.

I say: The statements of these distinguished scholars contain errors concerning which it is not permissible to remain silent.