and this has now become manifest with a clarity that leaves no room for the slightest doubt. But whose slip was it—al-Thawri’s, who here differs from all the reliable transmitters, or ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s, who laid the error at his teacher’s door?

I say, and Allah knows best: al-Thawri is innocent of this mistake, and the responsibility rests with ʿAbd al-Razzāq, for two reasons.

First: Although ʿAbd al-Razzāq is a trustworthy ḥāfiẓ, some scholars did raise reservations about him, apparently because they noticed certain mistakes. Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar, at the close of his biographical entry on him in Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, writes:

“Among the narrations for which ʿAbd al-Razzāq was criticized is his report from al-Thawri, from ʿĀṣim ibn ʿUbayd Allah, from Sālim, from his father, that the Prophet ﷺ saw a garment on ʿUmar and said, ‘Is this new or freshly washed?’ …”

Al-Ṭabarānī states in al-Duʿāʾ: “Three leading ḥuffāẓ narrated this report from ʿAbd al-Razzāq; it is one of the cases in which he erred concerning al-Thawri.”

I add: Among those who rejected this narration from ʿAbd al-Razzāq was Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn, as related by Ibn ʿAdī in al-Kāmil 5/1948. Let the hadith of Wāʾil fall into the same category, and this is reinforced by the second reason.

Second: ʿAbd Allah ibn al-Walīd—whose version Aḥmad records in 4/318—and Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf al-Firyābī both narrate the hadith directly from al-Thawri, having heard it from him personally, without any mention of a prostration after the pointing.

The agreement of these two reliable transmitters in contradicting ʿAbd al-Razzāq strongly indicates that the error lies with him, not with al-Thawri—especially since al-Firyābī was one of al-Thawri’s devoted pupils and therefore preserved his hadith more accurately than did ʿAbd al-Razzāq, and in this he is bolstered by ʿAbd Allah ibn al-Walīd, who is trustworthy.

Notice: Two men have erred in connection with this narration of ʿAbd al-Razzāq: