And Sayyār was Abū Ḥamzah al-Kūfī. Ibn Ḥibbān declared him trustworthy, and al-Ḥākim authenticated a hadith of his (1/408), with al-Dhahabī concurring; thus, his hadith is good.

Muḥammad ibn ʿAbbād al-Makkī was likewise trustworthy and among the narrators of the two Ṣaḥīḥs.

As for Muḥammad ibn Dāwūd ibn Jābir al-Aḥmasī, al-Khaṭīb mentioned him in al-Tārīkh (5/263–264) and cited, through al-Ṭabarānī’s route, a hadith other than this one from him, without adding anything further; he is therefore unknown. However, he was corroborated: al-Shajarī recorded it in al-Amālī (2/273) through Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd al-Jabbār, who said: Muḥammad ibn ʿAbbād al-Makkī narrated it to us with the same chain.

Regarding Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd al-Jabbār, al-Dhahabī said in al-Mughnī:

“His hadiths are sound, though more than one scholar deemed him weak.”

He was also corroborated by another narrator. Al-Ṭabarānī likewise said in al-Awsaṭ (9/73/8154): Mūsā ibn Hārūn narrated to us; he said: Muḥammad ibn ʿAbbād al-Makkī narrated it to us with the same chain, except that he did not mention: “fornication.”

Mūsā ibn Hārūn was al-Ḥammāl, a trustworthy ḥāfiẓ.

This sourcing shows that the narrators in the hadith’s chain are narrators of the Ṣaḥīḥ, apart from Sayyār Abū Ḥamzah al-Kūfī, whose hadith has already been shown to be good. Al-Mundhirī indicated in al-Targhīb (3/52/23) that the hadith is strengthened.

As for al-Haythamī’s statement in al-Majmaʿ (4/118):

“Al-Ṭabarānī related it in al-Awsaṭ, and its narrators are the narrators of the Ṣaḥīḥ”:

This generalization, it seems to me, assumes that this Sayyār is Abū al-Ḥakam al-ʿAnazī al-Wāsiṭī, who is among the narrators of the two Ṣaḥīḥs. However, Imam Aḥmad and others stated categorically that Sayyār