“Hishām said,” this is, by unanimous agreement, exactly equivalent to his saying, “on the authority of Hishām.”
Second: Even supposing he had not personally heard it from him, al-Bukhārī would never have stated it categorically unless he knew with certainty that Hishām had actually narrated it. This often occurs when many transmitters report the same ḥadīth from the shaykh and it becomes well known. Al-Bukhārī is the farthest of Allah’s creation from practicing tadlīs (concealing one’s source).
Third: He incorporated the report into his book entitled al-Ṣaḥīḥ, citing it as evidence. Had it not been sound in his estimation, he would never have done so; the ḥadīth is therefore unquestionably authentic.
Fourth: He recorded it in the form of positive assertion rather than the tentative form. Whenever al-Bukhārī is unsure of a report, or deems it outside his criteria, he says, “It is related from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ,” or “It is mentioned that…,” and the like. But when he says, “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said,” or “So-and-so said,” he is affirming and decisively attributing it. Here he has decisively attributed the ḥadīth to Hishām, so in his judgment it is authentic.
Fifth: Even if we were to set all of the above aside, the ḥadīth is fully connected and authentic in the works of other scholars.
He then cited the narration of Bishr ibn Bakr mentioned earlier on p. 42 from the version of al-Ismāʿīlī, which contains the very word “musical instruments” that Ḥassān the weak critic had denied existed!
- Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ had already said something similar in his Muqaddimah to the Sciences of Ḥadīth, pp. 72–73: “The ḥadīth is authentic, its chain of transmission fully connected according to the conditions of the Ṣaḥīḥ.”