nor did he record any statement of criticism or endorsement concerning him.

A second route from Ibn ʿUmar: al-Sahmī produced it (254–255) through Muḥammad ibn ʿUmar al-Rūmī: “Muḥammad ibn ʿUmar al-Rūmī told us; al-Furāt ibn al-Sāʾib told us; Maymūn ibn Mahrān told us, from him, as a fully-formed Prophetic report.”

This chain is extremely weak. About al-Furāt, al-Dāraquṭnī and others said, “He is abandoned.” Al-Bukhārī judged, “His reports are objectionable,” and Aḥmad said, “He is close to Muḥammad ibn Ziyād al-Ṭaḥḥān in his narrations from Maymūn; he is accused of what that man is accused of.” Ibn ʿAdī (314/2) wrote, “Practically all his narrations—especially those from Maymūn ibn Mahrān—are objectionable.”

As for Muḥammad ibn ʿUmar al-Rūmī, he is “soft” in ḥadith, as stated in al-Taqrīb.

Al-Suyūṭī cited the ḥadith in al-Jāmiʿ al-ṣaghīr from al-Ṭabarānī on the authority of Ibn Masʿūd; from Ibn ʿAdī on the authority of Ibn Masʿūd and Thawbān; and from Ibn ʿAdī on the authority of ʿUmar. In his commentary, al-Manāwī wrote, “Al-Ḥāfiẓ al-ʿIrāqī said: its chain is weak. Al-Haythamī remarked: it contains Yazīd ibn Rabīʿah, who is weak. Ibn Rajab said: it is transmitted through several routes, all of whose chains are questionable. From this it becomes clear that the author’s symbol indicating its ‘hasan’ rank—following Ibn Ṣarṣarī—is unfounded, unless the report were somehow corroborated.”

I say: you have seen that all its routes, apart from the first, are exceedingly weak; hence, according to the established principles of ḥadith criticism, they do not strengthen the narration. Allah knows best.

Furthermore, al-Suyūṭī attributed it to Ibn ʿAdī on the authority of ʿUmar, but I have not found it in Ibn ʿAdī’s work from ʿUmar—only from his son.