the comparative weighing, for it is al-Darāwardī’s version that is under scrutiny: he is a transmitter about whom the critics disagreed, and Abū Zurʿah and others actually labeled him “poor in memory.” Little wonder, then, that al-Bukhārī did not adduce him as evidence, whereas both al-Bukhārī and Muslim accepted the narration of the one who contradicted him.

Accordingly, the latter report is far more worthy of preference than al-Darāwardī’s, and no fair-minded person with even a passing familiarity with hadith methodology could doubt it.

b) Al-Darāwardī’s narration enjoys neither a corroborating chain nor a supporting report, unlike the transmission of Muḥammad ibn Jaʿfar, which has both.

The corroborating chain (mutābaʿah) comes through ʿAbd Allāh ibn Jaʿfar in al-Tirmidhī. Although he is weak, his narrations are recorded, as Ibn ʿAdī states; hence he is unobjectionable for purposes of corroboration and supporting evidence.

The supporting report (shāhid) is the ḥadīth of Ibn al-Mujabbar, cited by the Shaykh from Ibn Abī Ḥātim. Its weakness is of no consequence, since it functions only as corroboration, as is well known. I do not imagine the Shaykh would disagree, for he made a similar observation in his treatise al-Taʿaqqub al-Ḥathīth, p. 5.