I say: This is a chain of transmission that can be used as corroborative evidence, for Zabbān ibn Fāʾid is not severely weak. Al-Dhahabī said in al-Kāshif:

“Virtuous, righteous, weak.”

And he said in al-Mughnī:

“He was declared weak, but Abū Ḥātim said: ‘Acceptable in hadith.’”

Al-Ḥāfiẓ said in al-Taqrīb:

“Weak in hadith, despite his righteousness and devotion.”

Thus, his statement at the end of Umm al-Dardāʾ’s biography—whose name was Khayrah—in al-Iṣābah, after attributing the report solely to al-Ṭabarānī:

“Its chain is very weak!”

is refuted by his own statement in al-Taqrīb, as well as by the first route, for it constitutes strong corroboration for it. It appears that al-Ḥāfiẓ did not have it in mind; otherwise, he would have been content with it rather than the other route, which he judged very weak. This is what befits his memory and knowledge; yet glory be to Him who encompasses all things in knowledge.

Even more remarkable is the blundering and confusion into which his student, Shaykh Ibrāhīm al-Nājī, fell—contrary to his usual practice and precision. Commenting critically on al-Mundhirī’s preceding statement (fol. 37/1), he said:

“If the mention of ‘chains’ refers to al-Ṭabarānī rather than Aḥmad, then otherwise it is not tenable. Shaykh Nūr al-Dīn al-Haythamī attributed it to both of them in his Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid, but did not mention ‘chains’; rather, he said: ‘The narrators of both are trustworthy.’ Our teacher, al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar, attributed it in his work on the names of the Companions, in the biography of the elder Umm al-Dardāʾ, to Abū Yaʿlā and al-Ṭabarānī, and stated