Ahmad 1300

Its isnad is daif, as will become clear. Nuh bin Qays bin Rabah al-Azdi al-Haddani al-Tahi is trustworthy, deemed reliable by Ahmad, Ibn Main, and others. Bukhari mentioned him in al-Kabir 4/2/111-112 without noting any criticism of him. Al-Tahi refers to Suwayqah Tahiyah, a place he settled in and so was named after.Khalid bin Khalid is unknown, and in al-Tajil 111-112 it says he is not known. I say, he is Khalid bin Qays, the brother of Nuh al-Azdi al-Basri. None of Nuh bin Qays's teachers is named Khalid except his brother, and among those who narrated from Yusuf bin Mazin, none is named Khalid except Khalid al-Hazza, but he is not mentioned among the teachers of Nuh bin Qays. This assertion by Ibn Hajar that he is Khalid bin Qays is not conclusive, for what is the evidence for it? All the manuscripts of the Musnad, in this hadith and the one following it, clearly read Khalid bin Khalid. So he is an unknown teacher who is not recognized.Yusuf bin Mazin is al-Rasibi. Bukhari said in al-Kabir 4/2/374, Qasim bin Fadl and Nuh bin Qays narrated from him, and he is counted among the Basrans. He said, Hasan bin Ali said, meaning that he narrated from Hasan bin Ali using the phrase "he said," without mentioning direct hearing, as is Bukhari's custom in such indications. So he came later and did not actually meet him to narrate from Ali, and this is supported by the coming narration 1300, from Yusuf bin Mazin, from a man, from Ali.As for Mizzi, he went in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib to the view that Yusuf bin Mazin is the same as Yusuf bin Saad, thereby conflating the two biographical entries. Ibn Hajar in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib criticized this, noting that Bukhari distinguished between them, and that Ibn Abu Hatim likewise distinguished between them. Bukhari gave Yusuf bin Saad a lengthy biographical entry at 4/2/373, and Bukhari's approach is the correct one.So this hadith is weakened both by the unknown status of Khalid bin Khalid and by its broken chain. See 1122.