It was recorded by Ibn Abī Ḥātim (2/23/2), Ibn ʿAdī (2/234), and al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Muʿjam al-Awsaṭ" (2/8 - 1/6700 - my numbering) and Ibn ʿAsākir (18/93-94) through two chains from al-Ḥajjāj. Ibn Abī Ḥātim said: "My father said: This ḥadīth was not with anyone other than al-Ḥajjāj, and it was not in the book of (al-Layth), and this Ḥajjāj is a known shaykh." Similarly, it was said in "al-Jarḥ wa-al-Taʿdīl," and Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in "al-Thiqāt" (8/202) and said: "His ḥadīth is considered when he narrates from the trustworthy." And a similar statement was made by Ibn ʿAdī at the end of his biography: "When he narrates from other than Ibn Lahīʿah, he is reliable, if Allāh wills." In "al-Mīzān" and "al-Lisān": "Ibn Yūnus said: In his ḥadīth are oddities, and Abū Zurʿah said: His ḥadīth is objectionable. And Ibn ʿAdī vouched for him." 4 - al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī narrated in a marfūʿ manner similar to the ḥadīth of Ibn Mihrān from Ibn ʿAbbās. It was also narrated by Ḥammād ibn Salamah from Ḥabīb ibn al-Shahīd, Yūnus ibn ʿUbayd, and Ḥumayd from him. It was also recorded by al-Ḥākim, as well as al-Bayhaqī and Ibn ʿAsākir, all three of them along with the ḥadīth of Yūsuf ibn Mihrān from Ibn ʿAbbās, and al-Ḥākim left it ungraded, and al-Dhahabī said in "al-Talkhīṣ": "I say: Its isnād is good." This is what he said, but the scholarly critique—as far as I know—does not support this, as for the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās, due to what is known about the condition of Ibn Mihrān and Ibn Judʿān, and as for the ḥadīth of al-Ḥasan, due to its disconnection, so perhaps he means it is good with the combination of the two isnāds. And Allāh knows best