in age; thus, his transmission from them inspires confidence and reassurance, for they constitute a group, and it is extremely far-fetched that they should all err in what they relate from Ibn Masʿūd, much less collude to fabricate against him. Generally speaking, they belong to the generation of the tābiʿīn, and in particular they are Ibrahim’s own teachers, from whom he narrates. Moreover, in his biographical notice it is stated—al-Aʿmash being the source—that he was a “money-changer of hadith,” a meticulous critic. It is therefore inconceivable that he would cite them if he were not wholly satisfied with their honesty and accuracy. For us, their collective number offsets the objection of their individual anonymity.

Ibn Taymiyya’s remark on page ⦗70⦘ about strengthening a weak or mursal report through multiple chains points to exactly this. Consequently, a number of leading scholars declared Ibrahim’s mursal narrations sound, while al-Bayhaqī restricted that verdict to those he transmitted from Ibn Masʿūd, as mentioned in al-ʿAlāʾī’s Marāsīl ⦗168⦘; al-Ḥāfiẓ endorsed the point in Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb. This applies even more broadly than when he says, “ʿAbdullāh said,” for it also covers his wording, “from ʿAbdullāh.” First, there is no obvious difference between the two phrases; second, in neither of them does he add, “from a man,” as a disclaimer absolving himself of responsibility. Hence they share the same ruling.

There is also a prophetic hadith—i.e., marfūʿ—that resembles this case: it is transmitted by a group of unnamed tābiʿīn, yet some later ḥuffāẓ deemed it reliable because their anonymity is offset by their plurality. It is documented in Ghāyat al-Marām ⦗471⦘; whoever wishes may consult it.

As for the narrator who reports from Ibrahim, Ḥammād, he is Ḥammād ibn Abī Sulaymān al-Kūfī. Al-Dhahabī says of him in al-Kāshif: “Trustworthy, an imām, a mujtahid, noble, and generous.” Accordingly, he states in al-Mīzān: