I say: It is as he said, were it not for Ḥabīb ibn Abī Thābit’s anʿanah (his non-explicit use of “from” in transmission). However, Shuʿbah narrated from him, saying: “Ḥabīb ibn Abī Thābit related to us; he said: ‘I heard Abū al-ʿAbbās al-Makkī ...’” and he mentioned it with similar wording.

Al-Bukhārī (1979), Muslim as well, al-Nasāʾī (1/326), Ibn Ḥibbān (6193), and Aḥmad (2/188–189) narrated it through several routes from Shuʿbah, through this chain, with similar wording.

ʿAṭāʾ also corroborated him, saying: “Abū al-ʿAbbās al-Shāʿir related to us,” with similar wording.

Al-Bukhārī (1977), Muslim as well, al-Nasāʾī likewise, Ibn Khuzaymah (2109), and Aḥmad (2/199) narrated it.

Abū Salamah ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf also corroborated Abū al-ʿAbbās. He said:

“I entered upon ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ ...” the hadith, with similar wording.

Aḥmad narrated it through the route of Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq, from Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm ibn al-Ḥārith, from Abū Salamah.

Its narrators are trustworthy, were it not for Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq’s anʿanah (non-explicit transmission).

Note: Al-Suyūṭī cited the hadith of this heading in al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr as narrated by al-Tirmidhī and al-Nasāʾī. It would have been more appropriate for him to indicate Aḥmad instead of al-Nasāʾī, since the latter did not narrate it in the wording of the heading; rather, he narrated it with similar wording through the route of Shuʿbah, as stated above.

If it is said: There is no harm in attributing it to him, since differences between the narrations may be overlooked in such a case?

I say: If that is so, then it would have been more appropriate to attribute it to the two Ṣaḥīḥ compilers, since they too narrated it through the route of Shuʿbah, as mentioned above. And Allah knows best. *