and al-Aṣbahānī in al-Targhīb (2/579/1382, Fida edition). Al-Bayhaqī said (2/140/1):

“ʿAbd Allāh is weak.”

I say: Rather, he is abandoned. Consequently, al-Mundhirī’s statement in al-Targhīb (3/296),

“Al-Bazzār narrated it through two chains of transmission, one of which is strong,”

cannot be accepted. The same applies to al-Haythamī’s statement (8/92):

“Al-Bazzār narrated it through two chains of transmission, and the narrators of one of them are the narrators of the Ṣaḥīḥ, apart from Muḥammad ibn Abī Nuʿaym, who is trustworthy, though he has some weakness.”

They mean the chain of transmission of al-Nuʿmān ibn Rāshid, yet they have turned a blind eye to the criticism concerning him that I mentioned above.

The second is through ʿIkrimah ibn ʿAmmār, from Yaḥyā ibn Abī Kathīr, from Abū Salamah, from Abū Hurayrah, with the same wording.

Al-Bayhaqī narrated it (2/430/1) through two routes from him and declared both weak.

The third is through Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan: Qutaybah ibn Saʿīd narrated to us; Ibn Lahīʿah narrated to us, from Abū al-Aswad, from Yaḥyā ibn al-Naḍr, from him.

I say: This is a good chain of transmission, were it not for the fact that I found no biographical notice for this Jaʿfar.

All the rest of its narrators are trustworthy, and Qutaybah was among those who heard from Ibn Lahīʿah early on, before his books were burned.

Then I discovered that this Jaʿfar was Abū Bakr al-Firyābī. He was trustworthy, a hadith master, and reliable; he is biographed in Tārīkh Baghdād (7/199–203) and Tadhkirat al-Ḥuffāẓ. Thus, the hadith is authentic, and praise be to Allah.