Praise be to Allaah.
This hadeeth was narrated by al-Nasaa’i in ‘Aml al-Yawm wa’l-Laylah, by Ibn al-‘Sunni in ‘Aml al-Yawm wa’l-Laylah, by al-Tabaraani in al-Kabeer and by others, via Muhammad ibn Humayr from Muhammad ibn Ziyaad al-Alhaani from Abu Umaamah (may Allaah be pleased with him) from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). There is nothing wrong with its isnaad, and it was classed as saheeh by Ibn Hibbaan in Kitaab al-Salaah and by al-Mundhiri, Ibn ‘Abd al-Haadi and Ibn Katheer.
It was extreme on the part of Ibn al-Jaawzi to include it in his book al-Mawdoo’aat (“fabricated reports”), and this is not to be accepted.
The hadeeth was narrated only by Muhammad ibn Humayr from al-Alhaani.
This hadeeth may be classified as ma’lool (defective), especially as al-Qasawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: Muhammad ibn Humayr is not qawiy (strong).
Ibn al-Ma’een disagreed with him and said that he [Muhammad ibn Humayr] was thiqah (trustworthy). Imaam Ahmad said, I do not know anything but good about him. Al-Nasaa’i said: there is nothing wrong with him.
The isnaad of this hadeeth is jayyid, but it is not saheeh. But reports of this kind may be accepted for a number of reasons:
1. Imaam al-Nasaa’i (may Allaah have mercy on him) narrated it and did not regard it is ma’lool (defective); he narrated it in his Mukhtaarah and classed it as saheeh.
2. The hadeeth does not deal with any major ruling of sharee’ah.
3. If a sadooq (truthful narrator) is the only one to narrate a hadeeth, it may be accepted if there is evidence that his narration was of good quality. The fact that Muhammad ibn Humayr was the only one to narrate it is a case in point, but there is corroborating evidence in the ahaadeeth of al-Mugheerah ibn Shu’bah, Abu Mas’ood and ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib, even though none of those reports are saheeh. And Allaah knows best.