I say:

First: Attributing it to al-Tirmidhī is sheer error, for he did not report it at all. Rather, after the forthcoming hadith of Asmāʾ, he merely alluded to it by saying:

“Reports on this subject are also related from Abū Hurayrah and Umm Qays bint Miḥṣan.”

Therefore, when Ibn Sayyid al-Nās set out to trace this hadith—as was his practice with the suspended hadiths of al-Tirmidhī—he added nothing beyond the statement:

“Reported by Aḥmad.”

He did not cite it as occurring anywhere in his Sunan, or indeed in any of his other books. Al-Mubārakpūrī likewise did so in his commentary on it. Yet he introduced another error, saying (1/128):

“Abū Dāwūd, al-Nasāʾī, and Ibn Mājah reported it!”

Second: Declaring Ibn Lahīʿah and the chain of transmission of this hadith to be weak without qualification is not correct. For what is established from the aggregate statements of the hadith authorities concerning him is that he was trustworthy in himself, but had poor retention. He used to narrate from his books; then, when they burned, he narrated from memory and made errors. Some of them explicitly stated that his hadith is authentic when it comes through one of the three ʿAbd Allāhs: ʿAbd Allāh ibn Wahb, ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Mubārak, and ʿAbd Allāh ibn Yazīd al-Muqriʾ.

Al-Ḥāfiẓ ʿAbd al-Ghanī ibn Saʿīd al-Azdī said:

“If the three ʿAbd Allāhs narrate from Ibn Lahīʿah, it is authentic: Ibn al-Mubārak, Ibn Wahb, and al-Muqriʾ.”

Al-Sājī and others mentioned something similar. Likewise is the statement of Nuʿaym ibn Ḥammād: “I heard Ibn Mahdī say: ‘I do not regard as dependable anything I heard of Ibn Lahīʿah’s hadith, except the transmission of Ibn al-Mubārak and those like him.’”

Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar alluded to this in al-Taqrīb, saying:

“Truthful; he became confused after his books burned, and the narrations of Ibn al-Mubārak and Ibn Wahb from him are more reliable than those of others.”