beneath a veil; were the covering lifted, a momentous reality would be exposed—the sincerity of intention.

al-Fallās said, “I never heard Wakīʿ mention anyone in disparaging terms at all.”

I add: For all his leadership, his words about individual transmitters were exceedingly few.

Aḥmad ibn Abī al-Ḥawārī relates from Wakīʿ: “I have never taken a hadith merely by reading it to the teacher.”

I reported this to Ibn Maʿīn, and he said, “In our estimation Wakīʿ is utterly reliable.”

ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn al-Ḥakam ibn Bashīr said, “Wakīʿ narrating from Sufyān is the pinnacle of the isnād; nothing lies beyond it. I would not equate anyone with Wakīʿ.”

He was asked, “What about Abū Muʿāwiyah?” and he recoiled at the suggestion.

I say: The soundest chain—whether in Iraq or elsewhere—is: Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, from Wakīʿ, from Sufyān, from Manṣūr, from Ibrāhīm, from ʿAlqamah, from ʿAbd Allāh, from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). The Musnad contains several texts with this very chain.

ʿAbd Allāh ibn Hāshim reported: “One day Wakīʿ came out to us and said:

‘Which (1) of the two isnāds do you prefer: al-Aʿmash—from Abū Wāʾil—from ʿAbd Allāh, or Sufyān—from Manṣūr—from Ibrāhīm—from ʿAbd Allāh?’

We replied, ‘The chain of al-Aʿmash, for it is higher.’

He said, ‘No, rather the second; for it is a jurist from a jurist from a jurist from a jurist, whereas the first is a shaykh from a shaykh. A hadith circulated among jurists is better than a hadith circulated among shaykhs.’ (2)