Nasai

Fiqh al-Hadith:
This narration is “weak” (da‘if) and “rejected” (munkar), because:

➊ Its narrator, Muhammad ibn ‘Imran al-Ansari, is “unknown” (majhool).
◈ None besides Imam Ibn Hibban [الثقات : 7؍411] has authenticated him.
◈ Hafiz al-Dhahabi rahimahullah writes about him:
«لا يدرٰى من هو، ولا أبوه .»
“There is no trace of him or his father.” [ميزان الاعتدال فى نقد الرجال : 3؍672]
◈ Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani rahimahullah has declared him “unknown” (majhool). [تقريب التهذيب : 6198]

➋ His father, ‘Imran al-Ansari, is also “unknown” (majhool).
About him:
◈ Hafiz Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr rahimahullah says:
«فلا ادري من هو .»
“I do not know who he is.” [التمھید لما فی الموطا من المعانی والاسانید: 64/13]
◈ Hafiz al-Dhahabi rahimahullah says:
«لا يدري من هو، تفرد عنه ابنه محمد، وحديثه فى الموطا، وهو منكر .» “There is no trace of who he is. Only his son Muhammad narrates from him. His narration is in the Muwatta’, which is rejected (munkar).” [ميزان الاعتدال فى نقد الرجال : 3؍245، ت : 6325]
◈ Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah has ruled him “maqbool” (unknown status, majhool al-hal). [تقريب التهذيب : 5176]
He has only been called “weak” (da‘if) by a single person named Salamah ibn Qasim «لا باس».

Second Chain:
SA The wording of the narration in Musnad Abi Ya‘la [5723] is as follows:
«لقد سر فى ظل سرحة سبعون نبيا، لا تسرف ولا تجرد ولا تعبل»
“Under the shade of this tree, the umbilical cords of seventy noble Prophets were cut. It is not affected by worms, nor do its leaves dry up or fall.”
EA SH Commentary: EH
This chain is also “weak” (da‘if), because:
➊ Abu Mu‘awiyah al-Darir is a “mudallis” (one who practices tadlis) and has not explicitly stated hearing (sama‘).
➋ Sulaiman ibn Mihran al-A‘mash is also a “mudallis.”
➌ ‘Abdullah ibn Dhakwan did not live in the era of Sayyiduna ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar radi Allahu anhuma. [المراسیل لابن أبی حاتم، ص : 111]
↰ Therefore, this chain is “mudallas” and “disconnected” (munqati‘).

Third Chain:
SA Its third chain appears in Akhbar Makkah by al-Fakihi [2333], EA SH Commentary: EH
But in it:
➊ Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah is a “mudallis” and has not explicitly stated hearing (sama‘).
➋ Muhammad ibn ‘Ajlan is also a “mudallis,” and he too has not explicitly stated hearing.
Muhammad ibn ‘Ajlan is followed up by Ma‘mar ibn Rashid in Musannaf ‘Abd al-Razzaq [20975], but in that there is “tadlis” by Imam ‘Abd al-Razzaq ibn Hammam al-San‘ani, so this follow-up is of little benefit.
➌ There is also a “vague narrator” (rajul mubham).

Benefit:
There is nothing in this “weak and rejected” narration regarding seeking blessing (tabarruk), but it is astonishing that even so, some people present it as evidence for their supposed tabarrukat.

This narration is weak; however, it is clear that Mina is also a blessed place. But this does not mean that one should search for a particular tree there to perform prayers and make it a center of gathering for the people. Is it not sufficient that pilgrims stay there for four or five days, perform prayers, recite takbirs, offer sacrifices, etc.? Is all this not enough for veneration? Is it necessary to go beyond this and invent self-made forms of reverence? Especially when there is a risk that people may begin to regard that tree as if it were an “object of worship.” It was for this very reason that Umar radi Allahu anhu had the tree of Bay‘at al-Ridwan cut down, when people began to go there in crowds to perform special prayers. See: (Fath al-Bari, under Hadith: 4165). There was a danger that people might start to consider that tree as possessing the power to benefit or harm, just as happens with many of the “relics of the righteous.”