Ibn al-Madīnī said, “We do not know him,” and al-‘Uqaylī quoted a narration from him which he rejected, while Ibn al-Qaṭṭān ruled that he is unknown. For that reason al-Ḥāfiẓ [Ibn Ḥajar] labelled him “maqbūl” (acceptable)—that is, acceptable only when corroborated; otherwise his reports are weak.

In my own critique this ḥadith is also munkar (anomalous), because it conflicts with the sound ḥadith of Abū Saʿīd that precedes it, whose chain is authentic, as I demonstrated in al-Ṣaḥīḥah 2651.

His remark under no. 6—after citing the Prophetic ḥadith of Ibn Masʿūd, “People will be seated on the Day of Resurrection in accordance with how early they set out for the Friday prayer …”—reads: “Narrated by Ibn Mājah and al-Mundhirī.”

That is how it appears in this edition and others, yet it is a puzzling citation and something has almost certainly dropped out. The likely wording is: “… and al-Mundhirī declared it ḥasan,” for al-Mundhirī himself says in al-Targhīb 1/225: “It was narrated by Ibn Mājah and Ibn Abī ʿĀṣim, and their chains are ḥasan.”

In my judgment, however, it is not ḥasan, because its backbone is ʿAbd al-Majīd ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Abī Rawād, whose memory is faulty. Al-Taqrīb states: “Truthful but makes mistakes; he was a Murjiʾī.” Ibn Ḥibbān went to extremes and said: “Discarded.”

I further note that ʿAbd al-Majīd vacillated over the identity of his teacher in this report: once he said, “from Maʿmar” (and Maʿmar is reliable), and another time, “from Marwān ibn Sālim”—and Marwān is discarded and accused of fabrication. It is well known that such inconsistency in the chain is a defect that precludes judging a ḥadith as ḥasan even when narrated by a trustworthy transmitter; how much more so when the narrator is already weak. Declaring it ḥasan under these circumstances is wholly unwarranted.