Da'eef, Sunan Abi Dawud, no. (3730), Sunan at-Tirmidhi, no. (3455), Sunan Ibn Majah, no. (3322), and al-Albani graded it Hasan in as-Sahihah no. (2320).
This narration depends on “Ali bin Zayd”. About him:
☆ Imam al-Juzajani (RH) (died 259) said: “واهي الحديث ضعيف” “He is very weak in hadith and weak.” [Ahwal ar-Rijal of al-Juzajani (page: 194)]
☆ Muhammad bin Tahir Ibn al-Qaysarani (RH) (died 507) said: “علي بن زيد هذا متروك الحديث”, “This Ali bin Zayd is abandoned in hadith.” [Tadhkirat al-Huffaz of Ibn al-Qaysarani (page: 148)]
☆ Imam Ahmad and Imam Ibn Ma'in called him “ليس بشيء”, that is, worthless, and this is severe criticism. [al-Kamil of Ibn Adi (6/335), and its chain is hasan, al-Jarh wa at-Ta'dil (9/204), and its chain is sahih]
Imam Muslim (RH) took his narration in only one chain, joined with “Thabit al-Bunani” (Sahih Muslim no. 1789); that is, there is no narration from him on his own in Sahih Muslim, so calling him a narrator of Sahih Muslim without qualification is questionable.
Sunan Ibn Majah and others have another chain of it (Isma'il bin Ayyash, from Ibn Jurayj, from az-Zuhri) in which this narrator is not present, but it has several defects, especially the 'an'anah of Ibn Jurayj, and his case is not like that of ordinary mudallis narrators; Allamah al-Albani (RH) himself, in several places, specifically counted his 'an'anah as a severe weakness. For details see: (A Review of the Accusations against Yazid bin Mu'awiyah, page 507 to 508)
Clearly, the position of these two chains is not such that they can be combined to make it Hasan li-ghairihi. But Allamah al-Albani (RH) found another route of the Ibn Jurayj chain in which a narrator named “Ibn Ziyad” supports Ibn Jurayj and narrates this same narration from az-Zuhri. See: [as-Sahihah (5/411)]
Allamah al-Albani (RH) says that this “Ibn Ziyad” is either Muhammad al-Alhani or Abd ar-Rahman al-Ifriqi, and in either case this chain becomes fit to be used as support. Then the Allamah (RH) combined this chain with the chain of Ali bin Zayd and graded this narration Hasan.
The reply is that here the Allamah (RH) made an oversight in identifying “Ibn Ziyad”. Had he (RH) identified him correctly, he would never have used his chain as support. In fact, “Ibn Ziyad” in this chain is “Abdullah bin Ziyad bin Sam'an”, who is mentioned both among the teachers of Isma'il bin Ayyash and among the students of az-Zuhri, whereas neither of the two narrators mentioned by Allamah al-Albani (RH) is a student of Imam az-Zuhri. Moreover, one route of this same narration states “Ibn Sam'an” clearly. See: [al-Musnad al-Mustakhraj of Abu Nu'aym, no. (791); in the printed copy it is misprinted as Ibn Samhan]
So it is settled that “Ibn Ziyad” in this chain means “Abdullah bin Ziyad bin Sam'an”. He is a very weak and abandoned narrator; indeed several imams called him a great liar, (the general books of narrators). So the chain that appeared to be the best is in reality the worst, and there is no room at all to use it as support.