in Majmaʿ al-Baḥrayn (8/217/4996). I have not found anyone who attributed this tribal designation to him. Rather, he is given a biographical entry in Tahdhīb al-Kamāl and its derivative works without this designation:

“ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Zubayr ibn Maʿbad al-Bāhilī, Abū al-Zubayr—though it is also said that his kunyah was Abū Maʿbad—of Basra. He narrated from Thābit al-Bunānī ... and ʿAmmār ibn Ṭalūt, Zayd ibn al-Ḥuraysh, and Naṣr ibn ʿAlī al-Jahḍamī narrated from him. Abū Ḥātim said: ‘He is unknown.’”

Al-Ḥāfiẓ added:

“I say: Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in al-Thiqāt, and al-Dāraquṭnī said: ‘A righteous man of Basra.’”

I say: His attribution of him to al-Thiqāt is an error, which the annotator of Majmaʿ al-Baḥrayn followed him in. He confused him with ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Zubayr al-Asadī al-Kūfī, the father of Abū Aḥmad al-Zubayrī. Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned the latter in his al-Thiqāt (8/345), and this was one of his instances of leniency, for Abū Nuʿaym, Abū Zurʿah, and Abū Ḥātim all declared him weak in al-Jarḥ wa-al-Taʿdīl. This is likewise how he appears in Lisān al-Mīzān. He came later than al-Bāhilī: the latter narrated from Thābit, as you can see, and was therefore a Follower of the Successors, whereas Ibn Ḥibbān placed al-Asadī in the fourth generation—that is, among the Followers of the Followers of the Successors.

No one declared al-Bāhilī weak. Rather, al-Dāraquṭnī said of him, as has preceded: “Righteous.” Al-Dhahabī said in al-Kāshif:

“He was not a hadith master.”

This indicates that he was of middling standing, and it is supported by his statement in al-Mughnī:

“His hadith are good.”

As for al-Ḥāfiẓ, he said: