I said: This isnād is weak; ʿAbd Allāh ibn Zayd, the ḥāfiẓ said: "Truthful but has some leniency." I said: Thus, his ḥadīth would be considered ḥasan li-ghayrihi at the very least if it is free from issues with those below him; so let us examine. And Isḥāq ibn Muḥammad al-Farwī is among the men of al-Bukhārī, but the ḥāfiẓ said: "Truthful, but his memory deteriorated." He is like the one before him. So the focus remains on the narrator from him: ʿAbd Allāh ibn Shabīb; for he has a poor biography in "al-Mīzān" and "Lisān," and no one has authenticated him, and the best said about him is by al-Dāraquṭnī: "Other than ʿAbd Allāh ibn Shabīb is more reliable than him." Hence, al-Dhahabī said: "A knowledgeable informant, but weak." So using him as evidence is questionable. And Allāh knows best. He was not alone in narrating it; al-Ṭabarānī said in "al-Muʿjam al-Awsaṭ" (2/86/2/6378): Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī al-Ṣāʾigh narrated to us, he said: Khālid ibn Yazīd al-ʿUmrī narrated to us, he said: ʿAbd Allāh ibn Zayd ibn Aslam narrated it. And he said: "No one narrated it from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Zayd ibn Aslam except al-ʿUmrī"! Thus he said! It is as if he did not come across al-Farwī's corroboration, or he did not consider his isnād to him. And this is more just than the statement of the ḥāfiẓ (1/143): "I said: And he erred in that."