“Good, authentic.” Al-Hakim said:
“Its chain of transmission is authentic.”
Al-Dhahabi agreed with him, as did al-Hafiz, who said in al-Fath (10/31), after attributing it to Ahmad:
“Its chain is authentic.”
All of this is mistaken, for al-Hafiz himself said in al-Taqrib:
“Sammak ibn Harb was truthful, but his narrations from Ikrimah in particular are inconsistent. In his later years he changed, and would sometimes be prompted.”
- As for the hadith of al-Bara ibn Azib, Israel and Shubah narrate it from Abu Ishaq, from him, in the latter portion mentioned above.
It was recorded by al-Tirmidhi (3050, 3051), Ibn Hibban (5356 and 5357), and al-Tayalisi in his Musnad (715); and through his route, by Ibn Abi Hatim (no. 6775), Abu Yala (1719–1720), and al-Ruwayani (1/229/324). In a sound narration leading to Shubah, Abu Yala added that he said: “I said, ‘Did you hear it from al-Bara?’ He replied, ‘No.’”
This means that he concealed the intermediary between himself and al-Bara in transmission; thus, the report is defective because that intermediary is unknown.
This brother, al-Darani, overlooked this in his commentary on Abu Yala, saying:
“Its chain of transmission is authentic.”
He further confirmed this oversight in his commentary on al-Mawarid, where he said (4/340):
“Its chain of transmission is authentic; Shubah heard early on from Abu Ishaq al-Subayi ...”
He then proceeded to cite its sources briefly—contrary to his usual practice—because he attributed it to Abu Yala, and said: