190/1: Yaḥyā—meaning Ibn Ṣāʿid—narrated to us; al-Jarrāḥ ibn Mukhlad narrated to us; Yaḥyā ibn al-ʿAriān al-Harawī narrated to us; Ḥātim ibn Ismāʿīl (from) Usāmah ibn Zayd, from Nāfiʿ, from him.

With this very chain the report was transmitted by al-Dāraquṭnī (36) and, following him, by Ibn al-Jawzī. Al-Khaṭīb also cited it in al-Mawḍiḥ (1/111) on the authority of Ibn Ṣāʿid, and in his Tārīkh (14/161) through two additional routes from al-Jarrāḥ ibn Mukhlad with the same isnād.

In my view the chain is ḥasan, for all of its transmitters are reliable and known, except for this al-Harawī. Al-Khaṭīb gave him a biographical entry but recorded neither criticism nor commendation, merely describing him as a transmitter of hadith.

Al-Dāraquṭnī, however, considered the report defective, saying: “This is how it was narrated, but it is an error; the correct version is from Usāmah ibn Zayd, from Hilāl ibn Usāmah al-Fihrī, from Ibn ʿUmar, as a mawqūf report.”

Ibn al-Jawzī rejected that verdict, arguing: “We reply: the narrator who makes it marfūʿ adds an extra link, and an addition from a trustworthy transmitter is accepted; furthermore, a Companion may relate something traced back to the Prophet and may also state it as a legal opinion.”

I say: Such reasoning would be valid if every man in the chain were trustworthy—but you have already seen its condition. In addition, Usāmah ibn Zayd is slightly weak, and the report from him is disputed. Ḥātim ibn Ismāʿīl related it from him as marfūʿ, as we have just seen, whereas Wakīʿ differed and reported it as mawqūf on the authority of Ibn ʿUmar. Al-Khaṭīb reproduced this latter version in al-Mawḍiḥ and declared, “That is the correct rendering.”

ʿUbayd Allāh likewise followed him in raising it to the Prophet. Al-Dāraquṭnī and Tamām recorded it in al-Fawāʾid (104/1) through Muḥammad ibn Abī al-Sarī—“ʿAbd al-Razzaq narrated to us from ʿUbayd Allāh” with this chain—yet al-Dāraquṭnī ruled: “Its being marfūʿ is an error.”