This ḥadīth, when transmitted through Qatādah, has no basis, whereas through al-Zuhrī it does have a foundation, and Sufyān b. Ḥusayn has likewise related it from al-Zuhrī.

Thus the words of Ibn ʿAdiyy—as you can see—do not at all suggest that, in his view, the ḥadīth is sound and firmly established (1). Rather, his statement is identical to that of al-Dāraqutnī: he denied that it comes from Qatādah and held that it is only from al-Zuhrī. There is no doubt that al-Zuhrī did narrate it and that it has some basis among his reports, and people have transmitted it from him. Yet the reliable, firmly grounded scholars among his pupils—such as Mālik, al-Layth, ʿUqayl, Yūnus, and Shuʿayb b. Abī Ḥamzah—stopped its chain with him at Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab. It was raised to the Prophet only by those who cannot compete with these men in their field and are not counted in their rank for memory or precision, namely: Sufyān b. Ḥusayn and Saʿīd b. Bishr.

Accordingly, Ibn ʿAdiyy and al-Dāraqutnī rejected the version narrated by Qatādah from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab and deemed correct the version transmitted by al-Zuhrī from Saʿīd. Where, then, is any ruling from them that the ḥadīth is authentic and firmly established?

Moreover, even if their words constituted an explicit authentication, such a judgment would not override the critical evaluation we have cited from the leading imāms—Abū Dāwūd, Abū Ḥātim, Yaḥyā b. Maʿīn, and others. At most, it would be a point of dispute among the experts of ḥadīth, and the evidence would decide between them. How could that be, when the only person to declare it authentic is one whose rulings of authenticity are like trying to grasp water, a man already known for authenticating forgeries—Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḥākim—and in his Mustadrak there are, as Allah willed, a great many fabricated ḥadīths that have