he has a narrator other than this Abū Isḥāq—who is al-Sabīʿī—thus he is among the unknowns. Therefore, al-Dhahabī, as is his custom in "al-Kāshif," indicated the weakness of his reliability by saying about him: "He was considered trustworthy"! Hence, al-Ḥāfiẓ said about him: "Acceptable." meaning when corroborated, and he did not consider him trustworthy. Al-Haythamī pointed to the strengthening of his ḥadīth, saying—after attributing it to al-Bazzār—(10/68): "Its men are the men of (al-Ṣaḥīḥ), except for Abū Ḥabībah al-Ṭāʾī. Al-Tirmidhī authenticated a ḥadīth for him, and Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in (al-Thiqāt)." I said: The ḥadīth he referred to is about someone who frees a slave at the time of death. It is included in "al-Ḍaʿīfah" (1322) due to the unknown status of this al-Ṭāʾī. Nevertheless, al-Ḥāfiẓ deemed it good, and some contemporaries followed him, including the commentator on "Sharḥ al-Sunnah" (6/172), then he definitively stated the weakness of its isnād in the ḥadīth of the chapter in his commentary on "al-Iḥsān" (16/197). Had he reversed it, he would have been correct; because Abū Ḥabībah al-Ṭāʾī has a corroborator, narrated by Jābir al-Juʿfī from ʿĀmir al-Shaʿbī from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Thābit, the servant of the Prophet ﷺ, who said: ʿUmar (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu) came with a document... the ḥadīth is like the narration of al-Ṭabarānī from Abū al-Dardāʾ. It was recorded by ʿAbd al-Razzāq (6/113/10164), and through his route: Aḥmad (3/470-471 and 4/265), Ibn Qāniʿ in "al-Muʿjam," and several others, as seen in "al-Irwāʾ" (6/34-35)