Ibn ʿAdī included it in the biography of ʿAbd al-Malik along with another ḥadīth of his, and said: "These two ḥadīths are objectionable with this isnād; no one narrated them except ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Zayd." I say: Ibn Ḥibbān declared him trustworthy, al-Nasāʾī said: there is no harm in him, and Ibn al-Junayd said: weak in ḥadīth. Someone like him is considered ḥasan in ḥadīth, which is supported by the statement of al-Nasāʾī mentioned, and al-Ḥāfiẓ relied on him in "al-Taqrīb." Such a person is used as evidence in ḥadīth at the level of ḥasan, unless his error is proven, which is not the case in this ḥadīth. It seems for this reason that al-Ṭaḥāwī strengthened this ḥadīth of his. Moreover, there is support for his preservation of it in both isnād and matn, as Abū Bakr ibn Nāfiʿ al-ʿUmrī followed him from Muḥammad ibn Abī Bakr ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿAmr ibn Ḥazm from ʿAmrah with it. It was extracted by al-Bukhārī in "al-Adab al-Mufrad" (465), al-Ṭaḥāwī, and Ibn Ḥibbān in "Ṣaḥīḥ" (1520), as well as Abū Yaʿlá in "Musnad" (237/2), Abū Bakr al-Shāfiʿī in "al-Fawāʾid" (73/255/1), Ibn al-Muẓaffar in "al-Fawāʾid," and al-Bayhaqī, all from the paths of al-ʿUmrī with it. They did not mention in its isnād "from his father" except Ibn al-Muẓaffar in one of his narrations. However, this Abū Bakr—who is the client of Zayd ibn al-Khaṭṭāb as explicitly stated in "Fawāʾid al-Shāfiʿī" and a narration of al-Ṭaḥāwī—was said by Ibn Maʿīn: he is nothing