“He narrated from ʿUbayd Allah ibn ʿAbbas—or, it was said, from ʿAbbas ibn ʿUbayd Allah ibn ʿAbbas, and this is correct.”

Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar adopted this in his Tahdhib, listing him among his shaykhs. If this is so, it means that the name was omitted by the copyist or by some of the narrators; thus, he is ʿAbbas ibn ʿUbayd Allah ibn ʿAbbas.

He has another hadith in which he narrates from al-Fadl ibn ʿAbbas. They declared it defective on account of a break in its chain, and it is cited in Daʿif Abi Dawud, no. 114. As for Ibn al-Qattan’s criticism of him—“His status is unknown”—and the similar judgment of al-Hafiz, who described him as “acceptable,” this is refuted by the fact that four trustworthy narrators reported from him, and Ibn Hibban included him in al-Thiqat (5/258).

The same applies to Musa—namely, Musa ibn Jabr al-Ansari. Ibn al-Qattan likewise said of him, “His status is unknown,” while al-Hafiz said:

“Concealed [in status]!”

Yet a large number of trustworthy narrators reported from him. Ibn Hibban, however, said in his al-Thiqat:

“Trustworthy, though he errs!”

This does not harm him, for he is of moderate standing—especially since his counterpart, Kulthum ibn Jabr, was narrated from by Muslim and was declared trustworthy by a number of scholars. Thus, the chain of transmission is good, as al-Mundhiri and al-Haythami previously stated, provided that Saʿid ibn Kathir al-Madani is indeed al-Mulaʾi.

In any case, it is strengthened by the following route:

The second: Muhammad ibn Fudayl narrates: Salim ibn Abi Hafsa and Abu Mansur al-Juhani narrated to us, from Zayd ibn Wahb, from Abu Dharr … He then related something similar to it, its wording being: The Messenger of Allah said: