“We know of no report from Jābir except through this chain of transmission.”

I say: Al-Mundhirī’s statement in al-Targhīb (3/269),

“Aḥmad and al-Bazzār narrated it, and Aḥmad’s chain of transmission is unobjectionable,”

is open to criticism because he differentiates between Aḥmad’s and al-Bazzār’s narrations, whereas both narrated it through Zuhayr—namely, Zuhayr ibn Muḥammad al-Tamīmī al-Khurāsānī. The scholars criticized the Syrians’ narrations from him, but this report is not among them, for Abū ʿĀmir al-ʿAqadī was a trustworthy Basran narrator; his name was ʿAbd al-Malik ibn ʿAmr.

Al-Ḥāfiẓ said concerning Zuhayr:

“The Syrians’ narrations from him are unsound, and he was deemed weak on that account. Al-Bukhārī reported from Aḥmad: ‘It is as though the Zuhayr from whom the Syrians narrate were someone else.’ Abū Ḥātim said: ‘He narrated in Syria from memory, and his errors became frequent.’”

Al-Dhahabī said in al-Kāshif:

“Trustworthy, though he narrates unusual reports and relates material that is objectionable.”

I say: More than one hadith authority explicitly stated that the reports objected to in his case were those narrated by the Syrians. Thus, Aḥmad said concerning them:

“They narrate objectionable hadiths from him ... But the narrations from him of our associates—that is, the Iraqis—such as ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Mahdī and Abū ʿĀmir, are sound and authentic hadiths.”

Al-Bukhārī said:

“What the Syrians narrated from him consists of objectionable reports, whereas what the people of Basra narrated from him is authentic.”

Once you understand this, then what al-Haythamī said in al-Majmaʿ (8/32) is correct: