first: his wording, “Abī Buraydah.” This is a recurring error—here and in the new printing. The correct form is simply “Buraydah,” without the kunyah particle, for the Companion’s name is Buraydah b. al-Ḥuṣayb (may Allah be pleased with him).

Second: what is meant by “the Five” is Imam Aḥmad together with the four compilers of the Sunan, among them al-Tirmidhī, who, after citing the ḥadīth, remarked: “It is ḥasan gharīb; we know it only through the narration of al-Ḥusayn b. Wāqid.”

Regarding this al-Ḥusayn, al-Shawkānī says in Nayl al-Awṭār 3/233: “He is Abū ʿAlī, the judge of Marw; Muslim relied on him in his Ṣaḥīḥ, and al-Mundhirī said: trustworthy.”

I say: the author should have quoted such statements that point to the authenticity of the ḥadīth instead of limiting himself to a mere citation of its sources. Referencing the books is only a means; determining the grade of the ḥadīth is the goal. What benefit is there in providing the means but omitting the goal? This is a widespread affliction from which most writers, past and present, have not been spared—Allah’s help is sought.

The ḥadīth was judged sound by Ibn Khuzaymah, al-Ḥākim, and al-Dhahabī, and it appears in Ṣaḥīḥ Abī Dāwūd, no. 1016.

Under the heading “The prohibition of speaking during the sermon,” he cites the marfūʿ ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās: “Whoever speaks on Friday while the imam is delivering the sermon is like a donkey carrying books, and the one who says to him, ‘Be quiet!’ has no Friday prayer.” He says, “Reported by Aḥmad, Ibn Abī Shaybah, and al-Ṭabarānī; al-Ḥāfiẓ stated in Bulūgh al-Marām: Its chain is unobjectionable.”

I say: How so, when every one of their chains contains Mujālid b. Saʿīd, and al-Ḥāfiẓ himself grades him weak in al-Taqrīb, saying: