I said: This isnād is weak. Rāshid ibn Yaḥyá—also said to be Ibn ʿAbd Allāh—Abū Yaḥyá is unknown, as al-Ḥusaynī stated, and only two weak narrators have reported from him: one is Ibn Lahīʿah, and the other is ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Ziyād al-Ifriqī. Refer to "Taysīr al-Intifāʿ." The ḥadīth of al-Ifriqī has been previously extracted under number (2639) as a supporting evidence, and for this reason, I have also included his ḥadīth here as it follows. Al-Haythamī said in "Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid" (10/78): "It was narrated by Aḥmad and al-Ṭabarānī, and the isnād of Aḥmad is ḥasan!" Similarly, al-Mundhirī said in "al-Targhīb" (2/234), except he did not mention al-Ṭabarānī. The commentators on the new edition of "al-Targhīb" (2/381/2234) followed them without any clarification as is their habit, and I have realized that what they deemed ḥasan is based on a weak narrator from an unknown source! For this reason, I mentioned it in "Ḍaʿīf al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr," before the section containing this ḥadīth was printed from volume (13) of "Muʿjam al-Ṭabarānī al-Kabīr." I saw it there (21/36) from the route of Rushdīn ibn Saʿd and Khālid ibn Ḥumayd al-Mahrānī (originally: al-Hamdānī) from Zuhrah ibn Maʿbad from Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Ḥubulī with it. Khālid ibn Ḥumayd is trustworthy from the men of al-Tahdhīb, and Rushdīn ibn Saʿd, although weak, is a corroborator. If there were not weakness in the route to them—which I see no benefit in detailing—I would have said the ḥadīth is ṣaḥīḥ, but it suffices me to conclude that it is ḥasan based on the combined routes from al-Ḥubulī. As for Shaykh Aḥmad Shākir, may Allāh have mercy on him, he explicitly authenticated the isnād of Aḥmad (10/179) based on his consideration of Ibn Ḥibbān's authentication, even for the unknown, and his disregard for the statements of the critics who weakened Ibn Lahīʿah, even those who differentiated between what the ʿAbbādilah narrated from him, which is authentic, and what others narrated! And Allāh is the one who grants success. *