ʿAbd Allah ibn al-ʿAwadh al-Amlūkī narrated to us, from Abū Amīn al-Ḥimyarī, from al-Qāsim ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, from Abū al-Dardāʾ, attributed to the Prophet.

I say: This chain of transmission is weak. Although Baqiyyah explicitly stated that he heard it from ʿAbd Allah ibn al-ʿAwadh al-Amlūkī, Ibn Abī Ḥātim included the latter in his biographical work and said (2/2/133):

“He narrated from Abū Amīn al-Ḥimyarī, an associate of Abū al-Dardāʾ (?); Baqiyyah ibn al-Walīd narrated from him, and ʿAbd al-Salām ibn Muḥammad al-Ḥaḍramī, known as Sulaym al-Ḥimṣī, narrated from his grandfather, from him.”

He mentioned neither criticism nor accreditation of him; thus, he appears to have been one of Baqiyyah’s unknown teachers.

His statement concerning him, “an associate of Abū al-Dardāʾ,” may be a scribal error, for al-Qāsim ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān—the Damascene—stands between him and Abū al-Dardāʾ.

This Abū Amīn has an entry in Taʿjīl al-Manfaʿah (Hastening the Benefit) (465/1226), from which it is understood that his standing is unknown.

In short, it is an obscure chain of transmission. Al-Manāwī briefly addressed it in Sharḥ al-Jāmiʿ (Commentary on al-Jāmiʿ) (1/288), saying:

“It contains Baqiyyah, whose condition is well known; however, it has supporting reports. Some have mentioned that the author marked it as good, but I have not seen this in his handwriting.”

I say: It is noteworthy that the symbol assigned to the hadith in the copy of al-Jāmiʿ upon which al-Manāwī’s commentary is based indicates weakness. This gives the reader the impression that the commentary was not based on the copy of al-Jāmiʿ that al-Manāwī himself possessed.

Moreover, some of the supporting reports to which al-Manāwī referred are authentically reported from Abū Hurayrah, both as a report attributed to the Companion and as one attributed to the Prophet. Their documentation has already appeared in the first volume of this Silsilah, under no. 186. *