“I say: His hadith is good. Ibn Ḥibbān did not mention him among the weak narrators, and he was a repository of knowledge.”

The conclusion is that al-Ḥāfiẓ erred in describing al-Mubārak as practising concealment in transmission by omission of an intermediary; when the man explicitly states transmission from his shaykh, his hadith is good. And Allah knows best.

18—The end of hadith 489.

Muslim ibn Khālid corroborated Baqiyyah, narrating from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī Bakr, who said: “Al-Qāsim informed me of it.”

Aḥmad recorded it (6/70).

This is a sound chain for corroborative reports. Muslim ibn Khālid—al-Zanjī—was described by al-Dhahabī in al-Mughnī as:

“Truthful, but prone to error ...”

Al-Ḥāfiẓ said:

“Truthful, but makes many errors.”

As for ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī Bakr, I believe he is ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn al-Qāsim; al-Zanjī attributed him to his grandfather, Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq.

Then I found another route for the hadith, narrated by ʿAmrah from ʿĀʾishah, similar to the hadith under discussion.

Al-Bazzār recorded it (2/234/1592) with a sound chain, and al-Haythamī said (5/210):

“... Its narrators are the narrators of the Ṣaḥīḥ.”