Note / Clarification: The manuscripts have "mata'ahu", and what has been established in the text is from the printed edition, which is more appropriate.

Grading: It is hasan by virtue of its supporting reports, in sha' Allah, and al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar graded it hasan in "Fath al-Bari" (6/129). But this chain is da'if jiddan (very weak) on account of al-Abbas bin al-Fadl. The mention of "al-Ansari" in his lineage is an error (wahm), perhaps from the author (al-Hakim) or his shaykh, because this report is in al-Harith bin Abi Usamah's "Musnad" (as in "Bughyat al-Bahith" 511), where he is mentioned without a lineage. Abu Bakr bin Khallad narrated it from him (in Abu Nu'aym's "Ma'rifat al-Sahabah" 6050, 6926) and named him "Abbas bin al-Fadl al-Azraq", and this is what is preserved (mahfuz) about him. Likewise Ibrahim bin Abi al-Juhaym (in Abu al-Qasim al-Baghawi's "Mu'jam al-Sahabah" 2141) and Muhammad bin Ghalib Tamtam (in al-Bayhaqi's "Dala'il al-Nubuwwah" 2/338) narrated it from Abbas bin al-Fadl al-Azraq with this chain. There is no harm in Ibn Abi al-Juhaym or in Abu Bakr bin Khallad, and Tamtam is a trustworthy hafiz.

Technical note / Defect ('illah): As for the mention of "Lahab bin Abi Lahab" in it, al-Bayhaqi said in "al-Dala'il": This is what Abbas bin al-Fadl said (and he is not strong): "Lahab bin Abi Lahab", whereas the scholars of the Maghazi say: "'Utbah bin Abi Lahab", and some said: "'Utaybah". We say: The latter ('Utaybah) is the well-known one, because more than one author of works on the Companions has mentioned that 'Utbah accepted Islam in the year of the Conquest (of Makkah) and his Islam was good.

Corroborating chains and supporting reports: It has a supporting report from the hadith of Habbar bin al-Aswad in Ibn Qani''s "Mu'jam al-Sahabah" (3/207), Ibn Mandah's "Ma'rifat al-Sahabah" (as in Ibn Hajar's "al-Isabah" 6/527), Abu Nu'aym's "Dala'il al-Nubuwwah" (380) and Ibn 'Asakir's "Tarikh Dimashq" (38/301-302), via Hisham and 'Uthman (the sons of 'Urwah bin al-Zubayr), from their father, from Habbar. This chain is munqati'; 'Urwah did not live in Habbar's time. Some mentioned 'Utbah bin Abi Lahab in it and some 'Utaybah.

Reference / Source: It has also been narrated by another weak route from Hisham bin 'Urwah (in al-Tabarani's "al-Kabir" 22/1060 and al-Bayhaqi's "al-Dala'il" 2/339), from his father as mursal, without mentioning Habbar in it.

Reference / Source: It has also been narrated by another route from Muhammad bin Ka'b al-Qurazi from 'Uthman bin 'Urwah (in Abu Nu'aym's "al-Dala'il" 381), from men of his household who said … and they mentioned the story. And it is in al-Dulabi's "al-Dhurriyyah al-Tahirah" (77) as a mursal narration of Muhammad bin Ka'b al-Qurazi and 'Uthman bin 'Urwah.

Corroborating chains and supporting reports: Its second supporting report is from Qatadah as mursal. Abd al-Razzaq recorded it in his "Tafsir" (2/250), as did al-Tabari (27/40, 41), al-Dulabi (76), al-Tabarani (22/1060), al-Bayhaqi (2/338-339) and Qiwam al-Sunnah al-Asbahani in "Dala'il al-Nubuwwah" (305).

Corroborating chains and supporting reports: A third supporting report is from Tawus al-Yamani as mursal, recorded by Abd al-Razzaq (2/250), al-Tabari (27/41) and Abu Nu'aym in "al-Dala'il" (383).

Corroborating chains and supporting reports: A fourth is from al-Waqidi from Musa bin Muhammad bin Ibrahim from his father as mursal, also in Abu Nu'aym (383).

Technical note / Defect ('illah): As for this Muhammad bin Ibrahim, the most likely view is that he is al-Taymi.