from Abū al-Zubayr (1), we would have regarded (2) that as a defect. Since we found neither of these two defects in it, it could not be classified as defective on either ground. We then investigated further and found no report transmitted by Yazīd ibn Abī Habīb from Abū al-Tufayl. Nor did we find this text in this form among the reports transmitted by any of Abū al-Tufayl’s students, or by anyone who narrated from Mu‘ādh ibn Jabal other than Abū al-Tufayl (3). We therefore said: the hadith is anomalous.

We have also been told (4), on the authority of Abū al-‘Abbās al-Thaqafī, who said: ‘Qutayba ibn Sa‘īd used to tell us that this hadith bore (5) the marks of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, ‘Alī ibn al-Madīnī, Yahyā ibn Ma‘īn, Abū Bakr ibn Abī Shayba, and Abū Khaythama.’ Qutayba went on to name seven leading hadith scholars (6) who had written down this hadith from him. These leading hadith scholars heard it from Qutayba only because they found its chain of transmission and its text remarkable. Yet no report has reached us that any of them identified a defect in it.”

He then said (7): “We investigated and found that the hadith was fabricated, while Qutayba is trustworthy and reliable.”

He then cited, through his chain of transmission, al-Bukhārī, who said: “I asked Qutayba ibn Sa‘īd: ‘With whom did you write down from al-Layth ibn Sa‘d the hadith transmitted by Yazīd ibn Abī Habīb from Abū al-Tufayl?’ He replied: ‘I wrote it down with Khālid al-Madā’inī.’” Al-Bukhārī said: “Khālid al-Madā’inī used to foist hadiths upon