al-Hayyāj ibn Basṭām from his father from al-Ḥasan ibn Dīnār from al-Khaṣīb ibn Jaḥdar from al-Naḍr, who is Ibn Shafī, from Abū Asmāʾ from Thawbān. al-Ḥasan ibn Dīnār and al-Khaṣīb are accused of lying, so I mentioned instead the ḥadīth of Anas mentioned earlier." I said: And I have found for it a good mursal witness, reported by Ibn al-Mubārak in "al-Zuhd" (203/1), narrated to us by Ismāʿīl ibn Ibrāhīm, who reported from Yūnus from al-Ḥasan as a marfūʿ ḥadīth.

"Let not a man be prevented by the fear of people from speaking the truth if he knows it (or witnesses it or hears it)." It was reported by al-Tirmidhī (2/30), Ibn Mājah (4007), al-Ḥākim (4/506), al-Ṭayālisī (2156), Aḥmad (3/19, 50, 61), Abū Yaʿlá (Q 72/1), and al-Qaḍāʿī in "Musnad al-Shihāb" (Q 79/2) through the route of ʿAlī ibn Zayd ibn Judʿān al-Qurashī from Abū Naḍrah from Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī as a marfūʿ ḥadīth. al-Tirmidhī said: "A ḥasan ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth." al-Ḥākim said: "ʿAlī ibn Zayd was not used as evidence by the two Shaykhs." al-Dhahabī said: "I say: He is ṣāliḥ in ḥadīth." And I say: The correct view is that scholars have differed, and the more likely opinion is that he is weak, as al-Ḥāfiẓ decisively stated in "al-Taqrīb," but his weakness is due to poor memory, not because of any accusation against him personally, so his ḥadīth can be considered ḥasan or ṣaḥīḥ if corroborated. And this ḥadīth was not uniquely reported by him from Abū Naḍrah, rather a group has corroborated him: