Azami 15923

Tabarani related it in Al-Awsat (7691, 8154), and Shajari in his Amali (2/273), both through routes from Muhammad bin Abbad Makki, who said, Hatim bin Ismail told us, from Bashir Abu Ismail, from Sayyar, from Tariq bin Shihab, from Ibn Masud, and he related it.Tabarani said, "No one related this hadith from Bashir Abu Ismail except Hatim bin Ismail."Munziri said in Targheeb (2887), "Tabarani related it, and its narrators are the narrators of sahih."Haythami said in Majma al-Zawaid (4/118), "Tabarani related it in Al-Awsat, and its narrators are the narrators of sahih."I say, in its chain is Sayyar, whose name appears without further specification in Tabarani's two chains, while in Shajari's chain he appears as "Sayyar Abu Hakam." He is trustworthy, one of the narrators of sahih, but the correct name is Sayyar Abu Hamza, except that Bashir Abu Ismail used to say "Sayyar Abu Hakam," which is a mistake, as Ahmad, Abu Dawud, Daraqutni, and others have stated. Sayyar Abu Hamza had a group of narrators relate from him, and Ibn Hibban mentioned him in Thiqat (6/421). His hadith has a basis, so this hadith of his is graded hasan.As for Bashir Abu Ismail, he is Ibn Salman Kindi, trustworthy, one of the narrators of Muslim, and he relates from Sayyar. However, in Tabarani's chain (8154) it occurs as "Bashir bin Numan," and it appears this is a distortion. Allah knows best.